So what really is the problem with ‘Animal’?

The film justifies casual killing, random sex and contempt for the law, all in the name of protecting the family, writes Brinda Adige

Written and directed by Sandeep Reddy Vanga, ‘Animal’ is an alpha male, chauvinistic film that reduces, negates, and sexualises the role of women, normalises slitting the throat, shooting people dead, and strangulating business rivals, all to ‘protect the family’. Ironically, it shows no respect for the relationships that bind families.

The male protagonist inflicts violence — physical and emotional — on his wife, girlfriend, sister, and mother, finding excuses for his repeated, horrific crimes. The temerity with which Sikhs are portrayed as gun-toting men, willing to protect a member of the family without any thought about their own families, is not only absurd but also politically insensitive. Atrociously, the movie normalises all the protagonist’s crimes, suggesting he is an animal.

Slitting someone’s throat or the windpipe is neither a quiet nor quick way to kill, as shown in the movie. In reality, the victim dies spitting blood after a minute. In ‘Animal’, every act of violent crime is portrayed as a psychological response, stemming from childhood neglect by the protagonist’s father.  Preposterously, the film declares that children born or living with single parents are unhealthy, and that mothers by themselves are incapable of showing love and affection. In reality, we see families headed by single mothers bringing up children who do not display any such bizarre emotions or actions.

The film gives a thumbs up to the idea of revenge by men through gory, violent acts and random sex — it reiterates patriarchal notions about ‘guarding’ women. The protagonist, played by Ranbir Kapoor, is a man with a narcissistic personality disorder, a moneyed brat who will do anything in the name of family honour. How or why the censor board decided to allow a film that encourages such callous disregard of the law remains a question.

In our society, hatred, discrimination, and violence are systemically repeated to ‘teach lessons’ to people who belong to particular religions and castes, and to those who are not biologically male. ‘Animal’ completely negates the efforts of crores of young people who overcome financial and familial challenges to accomplish difficult milestones with sheer hard work, powered just by a belief in themselves. Their family ties are often frayed, and they may have absent fathers or fathers who abandoned them. The film ignores the daily challenges families face, with fathers and mothers making time to strengthen their ties with their children.  

Isn’t ‘Animal’ espousing brutality, domestic violence, the brute power of money, and lack of any responsibility for the safety of the family and others in society? Does the idea of protecting the family business from other members of the family entail no fear of the law or faith in the justice system? Doesn’t this arrogance reduce society to barbarism and sexual depravity? In ‘Animal’, neither the police nor the ambulance are contacted, and a battery of medical and mental health professionals are treated with complete disdain. Does being filthy rich allow people to function like that?

As a society, we place tremendous responsibility on parents as we focus on the children’s educational advances and ability to make money.  Love, kindness, compassion, and co-existence are learned behaviour, and parents cannot be the only ones charged to deliver them. 

Schools, colleges, teachers, mental health professionals, politicians, and religious leaders play a significant role in inculcating these values. Yet, ‘Animal’ conveniently negates everything and reduces the space for forgiveness and reconciliation. It sees no space to address insecurities in business and romanticises gruesome violence, lust, and smoking, even during recovery from a medical condition. Such behaviour is attributed to the protagonist’s childhood traumas triggered by neglect and separation from the father. Sadly, it deepens the power of money to destroy oneself and others.

How challenging could it have been for ‘Animal’ to show that most families do come together to talk, arbitrate, and compromise, accept members with psychological disorders, and walk alongside one another to overcome such challenges? Young people are being made to feel justified in overcoming parental neglect by showing ‘deep love’ for the father by using insane amounts of ammunition to ‘protect’ him as he is soon to die of cancer. Would there be no box-office moolah if higher emotions and values were portrayed by the protagonist? 

I wish the movie had emphasised the immense power of our mind and the support that families, friends, and communities provide to help us overcome pain and trauma. Relationships are the fragile bonds that connect us. Catastrophes are part of our human lives. Every single day, we experience bad, tragic things within families and in businesses. We move forward in the hope of finding love, affection, kindness, compassion, and peace.

(The author is a civil and human rights activist)