The film industry has been abuzz as the monumental success of the 2023 blockbuster “Animal” finds itself at the center of a heated debate, further inflamed by recent comments from esteemed screenwriter and lyricist Javed Akhtar. The film, directed by Sandeep Reddy Vanga and starring the charismatic Ranbir Kapoor, has been a commercial triumph, grossing close to Rs 900 crore worldwide. Yet, it is not the figures but the narrative and underlying messages that have stirred controversy.
At the 9th Ajanta-Ellora International Film Festival held in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Javed Akhtar shared his views on the movie, suggesting that the portrayal of certain characters could have far-reaching implications on societal norms and the perception of heroes in cinema. Akhtar voiced his concerns about the modern writer’s dilemma, attributing it to a societal confusion that reflects in cinematic works. He rued the days when simplistic narratives divided the rich and poor into clear moral territories, a dichotomy seemingly dissolved in today’s quest for wealth.
However, Akhtar’s most pointed critique was aimed at a particular scene from “Animal” where a man demands a woman lick his shoe, a moment he finds emblematic of a distressing trend if such content leads to box office success. “If there’s a film in which a man asks a woman to lick his shoe or if a man says it’s okay to slap a woman… and the film is a super hit, that’s dangerous,” he asserted, questioning the ethos behind such storytelling.
The response from the team behind “Animal” did not take long. Taking to their official social media account, they tagged Akhtar and countered, defending their creative expression. Emphasizing the betrayal between the film’s lovers Zoya and Ranvijay, they challenged Akhtar’s understanding of the nuanced artform, suggesting that love should transcend the politics of gender. They argued for a symmetrical perspective, stating that had a woman, wronged by a man, demanded such an act, the narrative might have been celebrated as a feminist stance.
The team’s rebuke did not end there. They further highlighted the double standards in societal reactions based on gender roles, expressing dissatisfaction with what they perceive as a conditioned response to female empowerment. The exchange on social media concluded with the film’s team reiterating their point: “Writer of your calibre cannot understand the betrayal of a lover…then all your art form is big FALSE… Let’s just call them lovers. LOVER cheated and lied. LOVER said lick my shoe. Period @Javedakhtarjadu.”
“Animal” stands as one of the significant releases of 2023, not only for its box office numbers but also for the conversations it has spurred about contemporary storytelling, gender politics, and moral compasses in Indian cinema. Besides Kapoor, the film boasts an ensemble cast, including Anil Kapoor and Rashmika Mandanna, contributing to its appeal and success.
This incident is but a snapshot of an ongoing discourse concerning the responsibilities of filmmakers and writers in shaping cultural narratives and the influence of cinema on popular consciousness. The implicit question Akhtar raises relates to the impact of such images on societal values and behaviors. Are films merely mirroring society, or are they also molding it? Where should the line be drawn when creative expression collides with ethical boundaries?
While the cinematic debate rages on, “Animal” continues to captivate audiences with its story and dialogues. The fallout of Akhtar’s comments serves as a reminder of the potent impact of cinema on shaping ideas and the critical role artists play in navigating the complex mosaic of societal standards. As the dust settles, the broader implications of this exchange are likely to resonate in the Indian film industry and beyond, as storytellers and audiences alike grapple with defining the moral fabric of our times through the silver screen.
