ANIMAL: The 'Alpha Male' whose emotions overpower everything else, when not arranged sequentially


ANIMAL: The 'Alpha Male' whose emotions overpower everything else, when not arranged sequentially

We all are uncivilized in our personal space, yet we often behave as moral teachers to others.

 
Animal Movie Review an unmatched Cinema Experience Explaining the Darkest Human Emotions
UT WhatsApp Channel Join Now

Movie Review by: Priyanka Jain

Recently, I watched the 'much talked about' movie ‘Animal’ directed by Sandip Vanga Reddy. There is a great buzz about the movie as well as a point of debate because of the concept of Alpha male, unbelievable action sequences and intimate scenes. Must watch Movie for Ranbir's power-packed performance.

Despite being criticized, the movie has got blockbuster status. Families are splitting, no one has time to say, listen, understand, analyze and suggest genuine solutions (except free advice). Thus, cinema becomes a source from which we try to learn and find solutions.

But Cinema does not have the responsibility to convey morality, ethics or whatever so. However, it should be understood that cinema exists mainly for entertainment without giving judgements or telling the good from the bad. The movie breaks away the monotony of feminism. No one is pampering a female or shedding tears in her memory or singing poetry.

There is no clear justification in the movie about Ranbir's character Ranvijay, as to why he is aggressive and violent. Maybe the Director doesn't want sympathy from the audience. No doubt, the toxic childhood, where parents are continuously absent to talk to the child, makes him feel insecure. The child (he/she) has hidden, uncontrolled emotions, which are overpowered when not arranged sequentially.

Another point of view is, that when the business owner of Swastika’s Steel with a huge security can be shot, then whom can he trust?

He turns into an Animal as per the needs and situations. However, even if he did not have the reason for being shot at by his father, then also he is violent. It is his nature. He will search for another reason to resort to violence.

The movie raises the question of what is bad in Animalism. Man is a civilized animal. By default, man is an animal who became civilized to meet his basic needs. The movie is labeled as anti-feminist, but just imagine you are in an unsafe place without food or water amid the violent animals. In this scenario, what will you accept from your man to provide shelter, food, water and safety among animals or having emotional talk or poetry? Hunger, thirst and lust are our basic instincts. They kick us. We all are uncivilized in our personal space, yet we often behave as moral teachers to others.

Why do some feminists have issues with violent movies? Cinema is not bound to make solely good movies for good people; gangsters or criminals also go to watch movies. They don't complain about why everyone is making feminist movies or why these movies exist. Why don't the filmmakers make only movies based on gangster, terrorism, and criminal themes? Simply, they do not expect that and if the movie is not aligned with their preference, they will leave without being triggered or without gaining anything, then why do we oppose the movie full of rage and violence? We have the choice to reject them and not to learn anything from them. Just as a gangster will not become a saint after watching a religious movie, a man will not become a gangster after watching violent movies. It's all about our mental conditioning from our childhood.

Feminism is not about only respecting women by men but it is about humans. Why our feminism doesn't hurt when a female hurts another one? Remember the scene in the daily soaps where the in-laws mistreat their daughter-in-law, take revenge, etc. We feel pity and sympathy for her but not rage and again when the 'Sanskari Bahu' takes revenge then also we feel a sense of satisfaction. It is all about the complexion of emotional bonding or playing with our emotions and portraying gender dynamics in society.

No doubt the portrayal of women is a bit wrong in the movie, but it exists even if they don't present this portayal. There is no need to limit cinema to play positive themes. It will not end the bad things that already exist. Patriarchy and feminism have existed since before Cinema, TV or the Smart Phone.

The movie breaks many norms - like the heroine Gitanjali (Rashmika Mandana) marries Ranvijay (Ranbir Kapoor) despite initially calling him bhaiya, Ranvijay does not surrender to his Jiju as per social expectations. The writer introduces first-sight intimacy rather than first-sight love with Joya (Tripti Dimri). She comes into the movie like a surprise package - full of love, emotion and dedication in her eyes for Ranvijay. Even Gitanjali fails to play such emotions, despite being his wife.

The famous love-making scene of Ranvijay and Joya, it was just Wow!! The perfect blend of love, emotion, dedication and lust. The best example of beauty and the beast. There is a discussion of being anti-feminist on the writer and director of the movie Sandip Vanga Reddy portraying the character of women like this; but this is only a movie serving for entertainment purposes. They are presenting a character not necessary that they are the same. The heroine Tripti Dimri declares that both the Director and Ranbir used to ask every 5 min if she is comfortable in a love-making scene - if not then they will do it at her convenience presenting real feminism.

Critics argue about Ranvijay's action when he tells Joya to lick his shoe. But look at the situation. She came intending to harm the entire family as a part of the plot. Unfortunately, she falls in love with Ranbir, so she changes her intention but she is a criminal. If it were a male instead of her Ranvijay likely would have killed him. You would have heard the concept of Vishkanyas in History when they were used to trap the king by physical intimacy and to take revenge and Ranvijay does something similar with Joya then what is wrong with this? Keeping in mind Ranbir's violent nature, both the women are alive in the movie despite speaking or acting against his father. Do you agree leaving someone alive is far better than being a feminist? Ranvijay was said to be misogynistic but why isn't he overlooked as guilty of fratricide? He kills his cousin - even being a blood relative, Ranvijay does not forgive him.

Bobby Deol looks incredible in the role of Abrar Haque despite being portrayed as anti-woman. In the introductory scene of the wedding, while dancing to the Persian song "Jamal Kudu" you won't get a single word of what is said but it will amuse you. He has represented himself at his best whatever he is. Abrar is a bigger animal than Ranbir and it was necessary. He has no fear of displaying his darker side, his rage, his tears for his brother, and his lust for his newlywed wife. By default, we have these emotions but we fear to represent them. But Abrar shows it without any hesitation presenting himself as the real animal.

The music in the film is aligned with the storyline, especially the Kashmir song without any musical instruments in the sweetest voice of Shreya Ghosal or Bhupender Babbal's "Arjun Velly," a Punjabi folk song. Rarely do we experience such a real thrill occurring on the screen.

In the concluding scene, the background music is amazing making cinematic History. "Sari duniya Jala denge" B Praak's voice effortlessly connects the entire story and makes a different impact in three different situations. The cinematography and action sequences are outstanding, and the emotional conflict between the father and son adds great depth to the storyline creating a memorable movie experience.

To join us on Facebook Click Here and Subscribe to UdaipurTimes Broadcast channels on   GoogleNews |  Telegram |  Signal