In the overly lengthy film “Animal,” an hour in, Ranbir Kapoor’s character, Ranvijay, enters his father’s steel factory, symbolically elevated on a pedestal. Against the backdrop of a swastika at Swastik Steel, he passionately addresses honor and loyalty, visibly upset after his father’s survival from a brutal attack. During his speech, he raises his right arm, compelling those around him to take an oath. In just moments, director Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s peculiar homage to Adolf Hitler’s Nuremberg rallies unfolds. This unexpected reference leaves one slightly taken aback, prompting the question, “Did a novice create this film?”
In contrast to Vanga’s previous film, the effortlessly infuriating “Kabir Singh,” “Animal” gives the impression of being deliberately crafted to provoke. However, insincerity is often apparent. The misogyny in “Kabir Singh” stirred controversy mainly because it seemed like the film was excusing the problematic behavior of its troubled protagonist. In “Animal” — a more stylized and consequently harder-to-take-seriously film — the most provocative moments seem forcibly inserted into the plot rather than emerging organically from it. Ranvijay orders his lover to lick his shoe, walks into a classroom brandishing a loaded assault rifle, and delivers a lecture to a woman about periods. This faux edginess results in a movie where a phallic machine gun undergoes a more developed character arc than the primary villain.
Struggling to accept this highly plausible reality, Vanga continued to assertively defend “Animal,” urging appreciation for its ‘craft’ as if a film’s craftsmanship could be divorced from its themes. But, for the sake of argument, let’s briefly delve into the filmmaking aspect. Despite Vanga denying any influence from “Oldboy” in Animal’s pre-interval action sequence, anyone familiar with Park Chan-wook’s seminal film — a contemporary exploration of the hollowness of revenge — would likely recognize Vanga’s intentions. The distinctive single-shot, elaborately choreographed hallway fight scene in “Oldboy” was particularly remarkable, featuring Choi Min-sik skillfully battling through a swarm of adversaries.
Since then, hallway fight sequences have become increasingly prevalent, with notable examples found in Gareth Evans’ “The Raid” and the Marvel series “Daredevil.” These projects seemed to grasp that the allure of “Oldboy’s” pivotal fight scene lay not solely in the setting but in the meticulous staging. In contrast, Vanga opts to keep the confined location (and the axe) while stripping away the very essence that made the scene memorable. It’s as if the filmmaker metaphorically took an axe to the footage; the action is chopped into fragments, with cuts so incessant that even a seasoned editor might blush.
In this particular sequence, which incidentally draws as much inspiration from “Scarface” as it does from “Oldboy” — at least in terms of spatial arrangement — Vanga employs a robotic arm to capture Ranvijay in an elegant circular motion. However, despite presumably having a splendid uncut shot of the raw action, he inexplicably chooses to fragment it with abrupt and frankly crude cuts. It’s a perplexing decision, but one that aligns with the filmmaker’s remarkably uncertain sensibilities. After all, this is the same film where Bobby Deol’s villain makes an entrance through a transition reminiscent of Windows Movie Maker circa 2002.
Vanga lacks a discernible sense of momentum, often draining the narrative’s energy by interjecting flashbacks or unnecessary scenes that should have been omitted. However, perhaps the most perplexing choice is his decision to shift abruptly to an odd conversation about itchy underwear right after Ranvijay unveils the identity of the man who tried to murder his father. As if the film weren’t already lengthy, the underwear scene also inexplicably has a payoff, whether or not you were anticipating one.
The filmmaker’s inclination to provoke controversy is evident from the opening scene to the final frame — “Animal” begins and ends with glimpses of an elderly, unchanged Ranvijay, who seems to have learned nothing despite nearly destroying the lives of those around him. Despite attempts to address past criticisms — such as giving more agency to Rashmika Mandanna’s character — Vanga continues to portray his problematic protagonist as the hero. It’s apparent that he hasn’t fully grasped the genuine concerns raised by discerning audiences with his previous film. This is reflected in his adolescent response, manifested through Mandanna’s character, Geetanjali, repeatedly slapping Ranvijay in this film.
The issue with “Kabir Singh” wasn’t solely about who was getting slapped or not; it was the film’s apparent endorsement of violence within relationships. Despite the filmmaker’s perspective, “Animal” is not as offensive as he perceives it to be, and he certainly isn’t the maverick that some have labeled him as. In fact, the careful precautions taken by Vanga in this film suggest a sense of insecurity, possibly stemming from the fear of facing criticism once again.
