Animal is a 2023 Indian Hindi-language film directed by Sandeep Reddy Vanga about the scion of a wealthy family with a messed up inner circuitry as a result of a craving for love and validation from his father. Even though Animal is as of now the 9th highest grossing Indian film ever made, it has the audience and critics divided due to its depiction of misogynistic and violent men.1
While there are those who are providing a balanced critique of this movie, acknowledging both its strengths and weaknesses, there’s a particular segment of the audience who firmly believe that movies of such nature should not be made in the first place.2 Their logic being, as people often tend to imitate movies and their protagonists, such films establish negative role models for society.3
I see their point. But I’m not convinced. I know the strength of the medium. Film is after all the biggest of the mass arts. It’s the most powerful medium to express ideas. So it must be used responsibly. But at the same time, I’m not of the opinion of establishing a precedent for determining the types of movies that can and cannot be made.
Everyone has the right to critique. Film criticism is important because films are important.4 We should discuss the themes explored in a movie. We should discuss the way it’s shot; the way the characters are depicted. But film criticism cannot be just someone’s personal opinion. It should be a thorough and well-researched dissection of the movie.5
It’s entirely reasonable to voice your concerns if there’s something you don’t like about it, just as it’s fair to acknowledge and appreciate the aspects of a movie that resonate with you.6
Examining films through criticism not only aids the audience in determining whether they want to watch them but also assists them in viewing the films from various perspectives, fostering a deeper understanding.7 However, when film criticism starts asserting that a film should not be made, it establishes an extremely dangerous precedent.
I believe creative work should not be burdened with people’s moralities. Moralities change. Like fashion trends. You might want to shut down some film, or put a ban on some book, or confiscate an artwork because it doesn’t align with your moral sentiments, but there would be 50 other things you agree with. However, different segments of the audience may not share the same view, and they might want to impose their moral standards and advocate for their brand of censorship.
Do this often, and suddenly you’ve something that is so watered down that it’s just politically correct mayonnaise. Something sooo much unbiased and devoid of any opinion whatsoever that it aligns with everyone and sides with no one. Just like McDonald’s burger.
Films influence society, so filmmakers undoubtedly wield a lot of power. If a filmmaker thinks they are being responsible in telling their story, we should let them tell their story. It’s their point of view. It’s not necessary that all of us have to agree with it. We should not burden them with our political opinion or our personal sense of morality.
If you don’t agree with a film, you can be critical of it. You can be critical of the taste of the creator. You can be critical of the characters in the film. But you can’t be of the opinion that such films should not be made in the first place.
Here’s what film critic Roger Ebert had to say about role of criticism: “I don’t believe readers buy a newspaper to read variations on the line ‘You are correct, sir.’ A newspaper film critic should encourage critical thinking, introduce new developments, consider the local scene, look beyond the weekend fanboy specials, be a weatherman on social trends, bring in a larger context, teach, inform, amuse, inspire, be heartened, be outraged.” Interestingly, he doesn’t opine anywhere that a film critic should serve as the flagbearer of morality.
SORRY, BUT WE DON’T THINK YOU CAN HANDLE THE TRUTH
Sometimes you don’t realise how stupid an idea is until someone drags it into the light for you.
Take China. The poster-child of censorship in the name of greater good. For one, they have to protect the image of their emotionally-fragile leader. Because, come on, if the world makes fun of him, what would the Chinese public think of him? Second, the Chinese public is stupid. Especially the low-income uneducated people. So it’s the responsibility of the elite and the educated to make sure the rest of the population don’t learn or, worse, do anything stupid. Because, obviously, if you are privileged with education (and by extension, have higher intelligence), it’s your moral duty to think for those who cannot think for themselves.
Whenever something even close to the c-word is mentioned in China, common and intelligent folks from universities jump into the dialogue to extend their support. Their soundbites are usually something on the following lines:
“You don’t understand. We’ve got a lot of uneducated people in this country. If anybody could say anything they wanted to on the internet, then someone would be like, ‘let’s overthrow the government!’ And a bunch of people would try to overthrow the government. And then where would we be? But we’re educated. That’s why we have VPNs to get around the firewall and read whatever we want.”
I can imagine similar logic being offered by film critics in support for film censorship. “You don’t understand. We’ve got a lot of uneducated people in the country who take a lot of inspiration from movies. If we start showing the lead actor doing immoral things, and then the public starts enacting those bad behaviours, where would society be? But we’re educated. It’s our responsibility to make sure such movies are not made. Even if they’re made, they should be restricted to streaming services such as Netflix, so that they don’t fall into the hands of the general public.”
The unstated assumption, of course, is that a certain group of “educated” people should shoulder the responsibility to determine what is safe for others to see and hear. Because, you know, people can be stupid. Some chutzpah!8
Looking back at my own education, I find all of this to be very amusing. At what point did I transform from an ignoramus, someone who couldn’t be trusted with knowledge, into an adult with a working brain, someone who deserves to be told the whole truth? Was it during my 8th semester in my bachelor’s degree when I neglected lab work for six straight months? Or, was it in my master’s degree when I skidded and fell from my motorcycle on an empty road after pressing the handbrakes instead of the rear brakes?
Now, I don’t mean to imply that our education teaches us nothing. My education has taught me a ton! But one of the most important things it has taught me is that you can pretty much never be certain about anything, especially when it comes to complex subjects like human beings.9 If you’re going to prevent other people from accessing Google or watching certain kinds of movies, you have to be pretty darn sure that you know what you’re doing. Because, chances are, anybody with that level of certainty is probably fooling themselves.10
The idea of elitism, that people are stupid and only few elites know how to handle the truth has led to outcomes that have majorly backfired.11 Governments have relied on this lie throughout history, downplaying imminent danger out of fear that the public will panic. They have used this excuse to distract people from the devastating effects of the pandemic on human lives (and how badly the government handled the whole situation). And yet, when disaster actually strikes, panic rarely follows. People don’t start blubbering or looting. They get themselves and their families to safety, and they risk their lives to help total strangers on the way.12
IF YOU BELIEVE “PEOPLE ARE STUPID,” YOU’D OFTEN BE RIGHT
The one thing literally everyone knows about improv theatre is the Yes, And rule. It means accepting and building upon the contributions of your scene partner. When they say, “The carrots aren’t here!” You say, “Yes, and they’re playing hide-and-seek with the potatoes.” When your partner says, “A new planet has been discovered!” You say, “Yes, and it’s populated by aliens who communicate only in interpretive dance.”
Saying yes prevents you from committing a cardinal sin — blocking. Blocking comes in many forms. It’s a way of trying to control the situation instead of accepting it. We block when we say no, when we have a better idea, when we change the subject, when we correct the speaker, when we fail to listen, or when we simply ignore the situation.
Saying no is the most common way we attempt to control the future. People’s natural inclination is to stomp into scenes and go “YOU’RE DOING THAT ALL WRONG.” Finding fault is our hallmark. For many of us, the habit is so ingrained that we often don’t notice we’re doing it. Sometimes, we may even appear to be agreeing by offering the Yes, But response instead of the Yes, And.
A: “I like browsing Google. The UX is much simpler.”
B: “Yes, but have you tried using Baidu? It’s homegrown and, on top of that, it’s censored.”
Or:
A: “I liked Animal. It’s a great movie!”
B: “Yes, but don’t you think it’s a little regressive?”
Nobody likes that!
An implicit understanding within the Yes, And rule is, “Treat your partner like a genius.” Don’t just agree to what they say, go one step further. Fall in love with their choices. It’s the only way to fight our implicit impulse of blocking. If they place the scene in 2029 Shire, that’s where it should be. If they endow you as their dead friend’s ghost, what an intriguing twist!
When performers do this, magic happens. They let themselves feel an actual emotion through the performance. The ghost would say, “You know, my haunting gig is a bit mundane. I keep trying to scare people, but they just blame it on the creaky floorboards.” And the couch would reply, “I’m so sorry to hear that! Why don’t you sit down on me and we can figure this out.”
If you believe “people are stupid,” you’d often be correct. If you maintain the opposite, you’d still often be correct. “People aren’t stupid” isn’t something you learn. It’s something you feel. The question is, what would you like to be correct about?
IF YOU WANT JOBS DON’T VOTE FOR TEMPLES
If, in some cataclysm, all knowledge on how to conduct successful political campaigns in India were to be destroyed, and only one sentence were to be passed on to the next generation of strategists, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? “Treat voters as if they’re stupid.”
Some of the most effective campaign promises in India are as follows: free electricity, subsidised gas cylinders, free midday meals at schools, 500 bucks in your bank account, a Ram temple in Ayodhya. There are ancillary longterm promises around job creation, better education and healthcare, but they are too abstract to comprehend. What gets the votes are these short-term tactical promises that are made just before the elections.
Prashant Kishor is a former Indian political strategist and consultant who is known for his data-driven and innovative approach to political strategy. This is what Kishor says in a recent interview:
“People are wise enough to know that we cannot give all control to one party. They love Modi but they still voted for Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal. They love Modi in Bihar, Karnataka but they still voted for somebody else there. People are wise. They may not appear as articulate and sharp as some of us might appear because of our education. But in terms of their understanding, the data suggest that people are very wise.”
It’s futile to mistake articulated utterance for intelligence. When you organise a political rally with this understanding in mind, how you address the people changes completely. Instead of making short-term impulsive promises such as “Get subsidised electricity for a vote,” you give them a framework to identify the right kind of campaign promises amongst the BS. You give them models to differentiate between the tricks politicians use to get votes and the longterm plans that would bring about actual reform. You do this so that they can make the right decision for themselves. Because if you treat a fisherman as stupid, you’ll never teach them how to fish.
After announcing his retirement, Kishor has embarked on a 3,000 km padyatra (foot pilgrimage) across Bihar, where Kishor is meeting with people from all across the state, with a greater goal of forming a new kind of political party.13
This is an excerpt from one of his rally speeches:
Raise your hands if you think there should be good education for your children. Now, tell me honestly, how many of you have actually voted for better education? How many of you have actually voted for more industrialisation? All of us sitting here know that the right price of paddy is 2,200 bucks. But you’re selling it for 1,600–1,700 bucks. Everyone here knows that if you could sell it for 2,200 bucks, your income would grow. Tell me, how many of you have actually voted for the right price of paddy?
You complain that politicians don’t keep their promises. That there has been no development. That things haven’t changed for decades. But my question is, if you haven’t voted for education, or job, or income, how can you expect things to change?
Now, let’s find out what you actually voted for. Did you vote for 5kg of free grains? They might have pinched 1kg from that, but you still got a solid 4kg. It’s a net gain. Did you vote for a Ram Mandir in Ayodhya? Even if there’s no factory, school, or hospital in your villages, a Ram Mandir is being constructed in Ayodhya. Did you vote for Modi based on the substantial development he brought to Gujarat? Well, Gujarat is developing as we speak, the factories in Gujarat are growing, and it’s your children who are migrating there to work as labourers.
So, if you vote for 5kg of grains, how can you expect to get good education? If you vote for Hindu v Muslim issues, how can you expect to get more jobs? If you aren’t concerned about the future of your children, why do you think politicians would?
It’s a little hard to believe now, but “democracy” was an absurd idea once. Many well-educated elites in the 18th century rejected it because they disagreed with the very thesis. They believed that the majority of people were not educable. That even with the right resources most people were born incapable of being guided by logic and reason. They believed that a government by the people would eventually collapse into chaos since it would be led by a parliament of fools.
I’m not denying the fact that some people can be downright stupid. I’ve written about them. But as a whole, people do better. Always. Individual humans might behave stupidly once in a while, but humanity doesn’t. Never. Humanity as a whole is a hardcore learning machine. It’s always open to new ideas. It always abolishes outdated ideas in the light of new insights. It only gets better with time.14
I think we need to outgrow the need for this idea that most people are stupid and it’s the responsibility of the educated class to decide what’s good and not good for them. And I sure hope we do outgrow it soon, because “people are stupid” is the gateway to a lot of far far worse ideas.
When you write someone off as a moron, you start treating them like an automaton. You suspend diplomatic relations with them. You declare war. You forget that this cuts both ways. How can you have anything other than open hostilities with someone who has decided that your brain doesn’t work?
I haven’t watched the movie yet. But that’s not super relevant for this discussion.
Both audience and critics have had a healthy obsession with social message-oriented cinema where the film not only entertains but also educates. Movies like 3 Idiots, Munnabhai MBBS, PK, which have not only been blockbusters but also critic favourites.
Particularly in India, a nation known for its emotional populace and widespread hero-worship, if you portray a hero engaging in harmful actions such as pointing a gun at his wife or having an extramarital affair, what would the youth learn?
Political leaders have been using it as a tool for propaganda. It can inspire the way people react to real-life situations, and at the same time, real-life situations are portrayed in films to sensitise people to various socio-political issues.
Trashing a movie is something any person with a laptop and a stable internet connection can do. But critiquing is a job that involves encouraging critical thinking and introducing new developments in cinema in terms of content, narrative style, and technology. Not everyone’s cup of freshly brewed coffee with some cocoa powder sprinkled on top.
I want to read critics who really know their stuff, whose opinions, whether I agree with them or not, are educated and come from a real understanding of how film works. Not merely about their likes and dislikes about things. If we depended only on taste, I guess we would never have gotten the The Sopranos — which has rampant racism, misogyny, violence, infidelity, and no punishment or reception at the end. As a critic, don’t just tell me this film explores certain regressive themes. Rather, tell me what purpose it serves and why it’s done a certain way.
The cinema we consume today — the kinetic cinematography, the dynamic editing, the sprawling montages, the creative sound design, are in many ways an outcome of a film movement known as the French New Wave. Who started this movement? Film critics.
According to the historian Ada Palmer, people thought that American democracy would fail because common people were too stupid to govern themselves, and they couldn’t learn any better. An under-appreciated corollary of “all men are created equal,” she writes, was “all people when born have the capacity to absorb education if given access to it.”
Teach them all you want about the importance of using the rear brakes, but they’d still panic and hit the front brakes in times of emergency.
I wonder which MBA grad came up with the grand idea of showing in big bold letters SMOKING KILLS on screen whenever there’s a smoking scene in a movie. I swear sometimes I cannot even find a trace of tobacco or even smoke in a scene, but there’s that god awful warning in big bold letters distracting me from the movie. “Maybe it’s not obvious that tobacco is injurious to health,” someone must have thought. “Why don’t we remind them that SMOKING KILLS? These kinds of warnings don’t work on me for sure, but what if it works on them?”
In 2007, the Indian Central Board of Film Certification initially refused to certify the documentary India Untouched, which addresses caste discrimination. They didn’t want the country to be shown in bad light. But the refusal gained international attention, leading to increased interest in the film. Eventually, public pressure resulted in the documentary being screened widely.
During the first wave of COVID-19 led lockdowns, 43.3 million interstate migrants in India returned to their homes. With almost no means of transport due to the lockdown, out of 43.3 million, around 35 million walked home or used unusual means of transportation.
If you’re less connected to someone, you see them less as a person and more as a blob. Blobs are simple. If a blob disagrees with you, that’s because it’s a big dumb sack of gelatinous ooze.
Foot-binding in china, medieval duels, trials by ordeal, sati practice in India, human sacrifice, bloodletting, apartheid, are no longer practiced, just to name a few.