The Bollywood cinematic landscape was shaken by the release of ‘Animal,’ a film directed by Sandeep Reddy Vanga and featuring Ranbir Kapoor as the marquee star, in 2023. The film quickly became notorious due to its depiction of violence and treatment of women, igniting fervent discussions on the nature of artistic expression and responsibility. Renowned personalities, including writer and lyricist Javed Akhtar and actress Parvathy Thiruvothu, were vociferous in their condemnation of the film’s themes.
Amid this sea of critique, Bhumi Pednekar, an actress known for her powerful roles and forthright opinions, has risen in defense of the filmmaker. In an interview with The Lallantop, Pednekar elaborated on her views concerning the controversy. Despite acknowledging her personal preference for lighter rom-com fare over the more aggressive “hyper-masculine” films, she upheld the filmmaker’s right to personal expression.
“I watched Animal. Truly, I don’t like hyper-masculine films, and that has always been my stance. Even in Hollywood, action films don’t charm me as much,” she revealed. “However,” she continued, “I genuinely believe that a film is a filmmaker’s self-expression, and that is very important. But as an audience, the challenge is in what you learn from that self-expression.”
The Director Sandeep Reddy Vanga has not shied away from responding to the criticism, taking a firm stance in defense of his creative choices and the resulting product. Following comments by Akhtar labeling the success of ‘Animal’ as “dangerous,” Vanga retorted in an interview with Siddharth Kannan. He implied that the comments stemmed from ignorance, implying Akhtar had not fully engaged with the film. “It is very clear that he did not watch the film,” he stated. Vanga also provocatively questioned why Akhtar had not extended similar critiques to his own son’s production, ‘Mirzapur,’ a series known for its raw language and bold content.
The director’s contention with the veteran lyricist’s condemnation could be indicative of a broader discourse on the levels of violence and adult content deemed acceptable within Indian entertainment. While defending his work, Vanga raised issues regarding the consistency of criticism within the industry.
Pednekar’s and Vanga’s statements form a larger narrative about the boundaries of art in contemporary cinema. The conversation is not only about ‘Animal’ as a standalone piece but also about the evolving parameters of storytelling and representation in media. As a celebrated actress, Pednekar capturing the complex duality of supporting one’s profession’s creative freedom while personally favoring a different genre underscores the subjectivity of art and its impact. Her disinterest in a specific trope does not negate her recognition of the artist’s liberty to create.
The dialogue surrounding ‘Animal’ is as intriguing as it is controversial, reminding both creators and audiences of the myriad layers that constitute cinematic art. It speaks to the power of film to provoke strong reactions, inspire discussions on social values, and question where lines are, or even if they should be, drawn. Pednekar’s and Vanga’s defense of ‘Animal’ advocates for a filmmaker’s autonomy in their creative journey, while inviting viewers to reflect on what they extract from the art that graces the silver screen.
