The movie's moral position is fascist. No doubt about it. I think films are more often a mirror of society than an agent of change, and that when we blame the movies for the evils around us we are getting things backward.
~ Roger Ebert on Dirty Harry (1971; Don Siegel)
There is no doubt about Vanga's fascist positioning either; if there was any, he cleared it in the first few minutes of the film itself with his character's ahistorical monologue about masculinity and courtship in the olden days. The idea is, essentially, that man is animal, and to survive and thrive in this animal kingdom, one has to be ruthless, violent, and immoral. Morality is a construct that does not consider man's true, animalistic nature. This nature compels Vanga's characters to be wildly possessive, apathetic, and violent because he views the world that way. Whoever is most successful in this makes it to the top, and the weaker has to follow. This is the very core of fascism - the supreme leader who has ascended the social ladder through sheer cunning and raw power becomes the leader of the pack, and the others - with limitations, flaws, and setbacks that did not allow them to be as ruthless - have to follow. There is no place for the vulnerable, they are left to be silently victimized.
Vanga likens masculinity to fascism - a man's identity is formed only when he can reach the highest peak of ruthlessness. Till then, he is just another one of the pack. In the case of this film, the protagonist is just another member of the Singh family that runs Swastik Steel, another one of Balbir Singh's children; until he massacres hundreds without mercy. That's when his name is revealed, his independent identity is formed, or rather, forged.
The ideas and politics behind Animal are abhorrent, to say the least, not to mention it's just a wrong view of humanity and masculinity. But I get why all of this makes sense to Vanga, or any other fascist, because there's some semblance of truth in it. The world truly does not function according to progressive moral standards, people do not either. But that's really not what progressive politics is about - such ideas stunt our progress as a society and as humans - sentient beings capable of transcending such primitive constraints.
But in the film's world, all men are animals, dwelling in carnality. There is no place for the vulnerable, violence is unrelenting, and sex is always unprotected and results in childbirth. In his world, the actions of his characters all seem convincing. Vanga succeeds as a storyteller.
The film moves at breakneck pace. Even at nearly 210 minutes, the storytelling does not feel dull except in moments that are clearly designed to manufacture outrage and serve no other purpose. The outbursts of blood and violence are not as frequent as supposedly promised but highly poignant. Even the prolonged pre-interval sequence does not detail the gore nearly as much as, say, Lokesh Kanagaraj, who gets away with casually tossing severed limbs into the air, showing blood spurting out of cut veins and arteries, or chopped heads. Even for people like me who've delved deep enough into regional cinema, some of the more outrageous moments feel rather mild. Films by Upendra have depicted more, and perhaps far worse, abuse of women. The dialogue about pad-changing is also nothing new for someone who's heard the dialogue "Why are you frowning and bickering? Are you menstruating?" (Baishe Srabon; 2012, Srijit Mukherji)
Animal has some of the best filmmaking I've seen in a Bollywood film in years, and few filmmakers've aced filmmaking on digital like Vanga, evident in both his previous film, Arjun Reddy, and this. The techniques used are rather simple, to the point of being unnoticeable, but effective nonetheless: the camera rotating to the rhythm of music, the slick cuts, and zooms clearly added in post. Above all, Vanga understood something few filmmakers understand - digital perceives everything way too quickly, so the time invested in showing things should double that of film. Every cut is twice as quick and seamless; every action is captured at four times the speed with room for further manipulation in post. Not to mention, there are some really stunning images of violence conjured on screen.
Animal
is a fascist film. There is no doubt about it. Yet, it provided me plenty of
food for thought and showcased some of the best filmmaking I've seen all year
in any Indian film. It puts forth a great pathology for fascist mentality as
almost a form of confession. I loved it for all the reasons I love the films of
Zack Snyder, Vincent Gallo, and Leni Riefenstahl - all films with something to
say about masculinity and/or fascism, and something new to bring to the table
with regards to filmmaking.
