Dhurandhar vs Animal - Masculinity Masterclass

Were Sandeep Vanga's movies misogynistic ? No

Were they problematic ? Yes

Read on !

The lead characters in both 'Arjun Reddy' and 'Animal' were offensive, problematic, short-tempered

But the question I beg to ask is if they behave so only with their women ? If no, they are not misogynistic, period. Misogyny is selective hatred towards women but the Vanga protagonists are self-destructive narcissists who want to get things done their way without any empathy towards people around them or cognizance of consequences. Calling them misogynous is frivolous and misplaced activism. 

But these movies invoked two types of discomfort especially among cinegoers, social media and armchair warriors.

1. Misogynists, underconfident incels, male chauvinists, control freaks, borderline psychos, perverts misinterpreted masculinity as some violent, irresponsible, obnoxious man-child behavior. They derived an involuntary validation for their school of thought that women are inferior species who can be harassed, tormented or dominated.
2. Radical feminists, 'my life, my rules' kind of anti-familial and anti-social anarchists got a cue to demonize masculinity, judge those who don't align with their ideology with a blanket term 'toxic masculinity', and act as moral police to sermonize what kinds of art or filmmakers should be universally liked or disliked.

I do not conform with either of the above and want to call a spade, a spade.

I'm a firm believer and practitioner of freedom of speech and art; filmmakers should not be limited to any moral policing or the burden of societal reforms. Art must be limitless and free, just as the audience and connoisseurs are free to watch or deride.

When Sandeep Vanga made his movies, he wanted to present his version of over-the-top escapist masculine movies and many who watched resonated with his brand. I loved both 'Arjun Reddy' and 'Animal' for the craft, music, characterization and I honestly believe 'Animal' is one of the best movies made regardless of the moral compass as I always wanted to see a desi version of Quentin Tarantinesque landscape in India.

But since 'Animal' made a thousand crores, low IQ filmmakers jumped on the bandwagon and started making mindless exorbitantly violent and misogynist movies which were repellent and disgusting to the stomach. While Vanga's movies were more character driven, young faceless incel blokes and male chauvinists latched up the misplaced masculinity to the extent they even lauded nauseatingly misogynistic characters in recent movies like 'Telusu Kada', 'The Girlfriend', 'Court' etc.  For them masculinity was tantamount to toxic irresponsible harassment of women. That's where the problem begins.

Masculinity 101

I was always stuck monkey-balancing my personal ideology by resisting both woke feminists and male chauvinists because for me masculinity is neither shameful nor a privilege. I'm a firm believer of theory of evolution and the order of nature which made a certain section to be physically, mentally, emotionally, biologically responsible for building, protecting and providing.

This might sound as border-line mansplaining as the statement might infer that all women need protection or provision. Absolutely not. I'm surrounded by strong, independent, intelligent women and I take pride in their grit and success. Women by nature are emotionally more matured, mentally strong and hence can both nurture the world with their femininity and also build, provide and protect in the current civilized world. They are superior and more productive among the genders. Can men do everything the women can so effortlessly ? Not unless they are pushed to a situation of no choice.

The only way men can contribute to the society is to enable and empower women with the innate masculinity of protecting - not from the physical dangers but from the societal constraints. It's about providing them - not just the material needs but the environment in which they can thrive. It's about building systems that could empower them in creating more important things. Not because the women are in need, but because men can't do anything else.

Dhurandhar vs Animal : Masculinity Masterclass

Among the three pillars of masculinity - provide, protect & build - the current crop of men are more involved in building and providing because women or families don't need heroic protection from anybody anymore. 

Some men with higher testosterone levels feel deprived of the feeling of protecting or fighting. Such men derive second hand pleasure only from watching fictional characters fight for their families and communities. 'Animal' falls under the category of those men who could go to any lengths to protect his family. That invoked a vicarious pleasure in most men who needed an escapism from the metrosexual emasculation of the contemporary urban men. Dhurandhar, in certain sense, also offered this escapism through gritty violence and gore. Such movies cater to the core psychology of men.

But the problem with 'Animal' is it promoted unregulated fantastical aggression which made the salivating men subconsciously confuse the protection of family with irresponsible man-child persona. The protagonist appeared to protect but in the underbelly, did not bother about consequences, did not show responsibility and did not build or provide to the family. 

Dhurandhar scored right here. The first masterstroke of the director was to take any perceived misogyny away from masculinity by not tormenting any females but instead giving them more power to slap them. While it's a superbly made gripping thriller devoid of any sermons, the movie is all about hyper masculine men who were hell-bent on protecting and building communities through composure.

Hamza Ali (or Jaskirat Rangi), Ajay Sanyal were there to protect their country and they built a strategy. Rehman Dakait despite being a monster strengthened his community. Major Iqbal or SP Aslam did whatever they did to protect their country in their own ways and loyalties. They were all men's men who built their empires by destroying enemies and providing security to the communities that believed in them. More importantly, all of them were shown as calm, composed, calculating, intelligent, emotionally stable and responsible men who built, provided and protected. That's a masculinity masterclass.

A renowned professor and philosopher Jordan Peterson once said that harmless man is not a good man. A good man is a one who is dangerous, who can be harmful but can control the aggression to channelize energies and emotions to build, protect, provide to the world around him so they can lead a peaceful, happy and comfortable life. 

In real life, men do not have to be overtly dangerous or harmful. They just have to realize their role in the larger fabric of the society. If you are a man, don't let anybody taunt you about your masculinity. There's nothing shameful about it. At the same time, masculinity is not a privilege, its a duty. Perform it.