In a whirlwind of controversy and polarized opinions, the latest cinematic offering “Animal” has captured the national spotlight following its December 1 release. The film, featuring Bollywood star Ranbir Kapoor, has swiftly raked in a staggering INR 130 crore at the Indian box office within just two days, transcending language barriers across the country. Directed by Sandeep Reddy Vanga, previously lauded for his 2019 hit “Kabir Singh,” made a bold promise of augmented violence in his new venture, a pledge which he has unquestionably fulfilled.
Despite the box office success, “Animal” has been mired in contentious debates over its representation of male characters, the objectification of its female characters, and the intense violence and gore depicted. A swath of critics and moviegoers have implored the public to view the movie as a standalone artistic work, devoid of moral scrutiny. Nevertheless, the blatant display of misogyny and the diminutive treatment of female characters, combined with rampant violence, has left many dissatisfied. Among the critics is renowned lyricist, writer, and actor Swanand Kirikire, as well as prominent India cricketer Jaydev Unadkat.
Unadkat, known for his skills as a left-arm pacer, took to X (formerly Twitter) to pronounce his displeasure with the film. With a candid review, Unadkat denounced “Animal” as a “disgrace,” condemning the movie for its misogynistic themes and the problematic glorification surrounding them. He expressed his regret for dedicating three hours to a film that he maintains was a waste of his time.
In his now-deleted social media post, Unadkat lamented, “What an absolute disaster #AnimalTheFilm was! Glorifying misogyny in today’s world and then tagging it as mere ‘traditional masculinity’ and ‘alpha male’ is a disgrace. We aren’t living in the jungles and palaces and fighting wars or going hunting anymore. It doesn’t matter how good the acting was, one shouldn’t glorify & show such acts in a movie that is watched by millions. There is a thing called social responsibility even in the entertainment industry that one should never forget. Just feels bad that I wasted my 3 hours to watch such a pathetically made movie.”
Although Unadkat’s critical review has since been removed from the internet, it has ignited a wider debate on the role of social responsibility in filmmaking. As “Animal” continues to pull in moviegoers, aided by its contentious reputation, the film industry is once again confronted with the age-old question of where to draw the line between creative expression and social conscience.
“Animal” undeniably stands as one of the most divisive films in recent memory, touching off an array of reactions from every corner of society. With Unadkat recanting his public critique, it remains to be seen whether other cricketers or public figures will venture to share their thoughts on the film, particularly given the potential backlash.
The film’s trajectory has demonstrated a remarkable ability to generate discourse that extends beyond the parameters of the cinema, ensnaring the attention of individuals from various walks of life, including those from the sporting world. As “Animal” continues its tumultuous journey, the broader implications of the reactions it invokes will likely reverberate well into the future of Indian cinema and beyond.