Why The Blue-Tick Crowd Loves To Hate 'Animal'

An oft cited joke about the nature of social media is that on social media if one person says he loves oranges, he is sure to be accused by a random stranger of discriminating against apples.

The nature of algorithms and the incentives are aligned to expressly promote opposing views expressed in the strongest possible language. Therefore, it occasions no surprise to me to see that the Hindi film, Animal (2023) and its subsequent release on Netflix has caused much, and mostly bitter, debate on the film’s content and message. 

Before we go any further in analysing this response, I would like to mention that I watched the film at a theatre a few weeks ago and I liked it- quite a bit. And even though it is not the scope of this article to write a detailed review, I must mention that if the film ultimately fell short, it was because the director aimed too high. Not connecting to the ball is the risk every big swing carries, and to SRV’s immense credit, he not only took a big swing but also connected- at least partially.

The film has very interesting things to say about masculinity and the siren song of violence and it is fuelled by career-best work of the charismatic Ranbir Kapoor. 

Is the film misogynist and sexist?

Well, since I lack the utter confidence that only comes with being prejudiced, let me just say if Ranbir’s character is a misogynist, his peculiar and somewhat pathetic brand of misogyny is roughly like little boys pulling little girl’s ponytails because they want the little girls to like them. 

As a man, he is too insecure and too far inside his overachieving father’s shadow to be truly harmful to anyone but himself. I remember reading what Julia Phillips, Martin Scorsese’s then girlfriend said about Travis Bickle, Robert DeNiro’s character from Taxi Driver – There is no edge to his anger, you just want to slap him awake and say “there, there.”  I thought of this line more than once while watching the film.

But then again, this is social media and posting ten second clips of a 201-minute film to draw broad, immutable conclusions is where we are at.

In these us-versus-them vacuum chambers, context is the dirtiest seven-letter word, and nuance is the defining characteristic of those limp of wrist and mind. Ironically, the protagonist of Animal seeks and thrives on such absolutes too. 

However, when it comes to the bitter most criticism of Animal, two things jumped at me.

One, this film is one of those rare instances where it was attacked from the left and the right. In a strange way, this violent action drama acted as a unifier for people who agree on almost nothing else.

Second, if you grouped the fans of the film and its critics, you would notice almost all the critics were the blue-tick, well-followed type, especially on the right; while the fans were your ordinary viewers.

I think these two facts are not entirely unrelated. 

The early movers of social media recognised the value of the medium both as cheap and fast way to build wide reach, as well as an efficient way to build toll booths with mandatory tribute before allowing passage.

Appointing yourself as the guardian of morality as well as taste was never more cost-efficient. Anyone with the rudimentary skill to whip up passions among people already warmed up at the idea of howling at the moon could build huge following. 

The guardians could show this following to prospective marketers both as a target demographic to promote their product and a mob that could unleash hell on demand. It is not hard to see why an entertainer with the ability to bypass these gatekeepers to reach the consumers directly is seen as a threat to be fought urgently. 

The commercial success of Animal scarcely needs repeating, but an interesting anecdote bears a mention.

Last week, at a social gathering, I was with a group of people in their early twenties and almost to a person they had all loved the film. If anything, the girls in that group were even bigger fans of the film than the boys.

Surprising for a “misogynist” and “sexist” film, yes? I did not question them extensively (I was not planning to write an article then!) but my feeling is that as a cohort that faces misogyny and sexism in real life, they could see through the character’s façade, primarily a result of his insecurities and fear of inadequacies, and love the part where, exiled by both sets of parents, he takes care of his wife and new-born babies while working full-time. Or, perhaps they had not yet lost their ability to relax and take in a film for the fun it was offering.

And I think it is precisely this reason why Animal has received so much renewed hostility upon its OTT release. 

With enhanced accessibility, more people who missed the film on the big screen would watch it, and discover the controversy about the film was much ado about nothing. This hurts the credibility of the people who denounced the film vociferously, which in turn may loosen their control of the toll booths they have worked so hard building. Must. Not. Happen. 

Of course, you may also see a group that has called the film atrocious and boring without going into the controversy. Taste is highly individualised, and at least some of these people, blue-tick and all, may have genuinely found this film distasteful. That said, if they expect their opinion about the artistic merits of the film to be taken as an honest assessment, it becomes incumbent on them to extend the same privilege to those who liked the film. 

One worthy wrote that after watching the film that he realised Indian public has long way to go in building good taste (paraphrasing). It is this “if you do not agree with me, you must be artistically illiterate” condescension that raises questions about the writer’s motives.

One final point before we move on - It can be realistically argued that Oppenheimer, a man who left his young children with a friend, and a philanderer who was at least partially to blame for his lover’s suicide should be a bigger example of misogyny, but I guess there is something about giving mankind weapons of mass destruction that makes people forgive such character flaws. And while I found Oppenheimer the film excessively indulgent and exquisitely boring, when modern feminists blamed sexism for success of Oppenheimer compared to Barbie in certain markets, I was on the side of the Christopher Nolan film. 

Making judgement about people’s personal characters based on the art and entertainment they consume is a sign of closed, vindictive mind and if we were to start undoing the damage caused by today’s polarised discourse, then giving those you disagree with benefit of charitable interpretation is as good a place to start as any.