Animal (2023) #SherylPuthur

Directed By: Sandeep Reddy Vanga

Screenplay By: Sandeep Reddy Vanga; Pranay Reddy Vanga; Saurabh Gupta

Cast: Ranbir Kapoor; Anil Kapoor; Rashmika Mandanna; Bobby Deol; Charu Shankar; Tripti Dimri; Babloo Prithiveeraj; Shakti Kapoor; Prem Chopra; Suresh Oberoi; Siddhant Karnick; Saurabh Sachdeva; Vivek Sharma; Saloni Batra

Language: Hindi                                                 

Genre: Action-Drama

Run Time: 3 hours and 21 minutes

Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s Animal promises to be a violent, sexist blood fest but is actually a family drama centred around miscommunication.

Rannvijay (Ranbir Kapoor) aches for his father Balbir (Anil Kapoor)’s approval to a point where he leaves good sense and family etiquette behind, acting on impulse rather than logic. This, time and again, puts him at variance with his father. Rannvijay, however, views himself as the protector of the family and if anything, his purpose revolves around validation.

He marries Gitanjali (Rashmika Mandanna), a young woman from a middle-class Telugu family. He then cuts ties with his family till he hears that his father was a victim of a failed assassination. This is when we see his transformation into his alpha male fantasy. He uses his intelligence and cunning to smoke out the culprits and the whole thing leads to an extraordinary blood pumping showdown which wraps up the first act.

When the second act opens, we are told that there are greater things afoot and that he must continue with his special brand of revenge. The story one-dimensionally borrows from The Mahabharata to pad up the plot, while simultaneously slowing down the pace and revealing the gaps.

Ranbir Kapoor stands out, as he does in every role he chooses to essay. If anything, it is his energy and verve that helps you gloss over the wafer-thin plot. If the film intended to prove that Balbir was an over-demanding father who pushes his son to unseemly heights or maybe descents, for his approval – then they should have drawn from Devdas. Devdas underscores the trauma by the father in very few sequences and gives us the reason for Devdas’ indecisiveness. Or, if the plan was to show that Rannvijay is delusional and unhinged, the plot could have veered closer to Vaastav. But if the end result was to show the utter pointlessness of each decision, then a dark comedy would have at least made sense.

Nevertheless, some of the controversies surrounding the film should be addressed. It has been called horribly sexist. But is it? It is the garden variety sexism – ‘you need to listen to me because I am a man’ but not necessarily violent. It is dismissive of the woman’s choice but they speak up, often and loudly. Of course, this comparison is based on Vanga’s previous outings – Arjun Reddy and Kabir Singh.

While Arjun Reddy is the poster child for a bad male role model because of his over-emotional and unhinged behaviour. Rannvijay, however, when not acting on his delusional impulses or getting angry with people when they poke holes in his paranoid reality, is actually nice. It is in fact through Rashmika’s portrayal of Gitanjali that Rannvijay is actually redeemed, since she holds her own as an actor and a character within the narrative.

Much of the other ‘sexist’ conversations feel like you walked into a boy’s locker room and heard them discussing underwear, penis sizes, how often you do it or how a man must look commanding to keep his woman under control. They weren’t infuriating but actually tedious. They weren’t meant as asides that built on the realism of the narrative, the kind that you find in a Scorsese film. But rather one realises that these pointless conversations were being used as fillers to plug the holes in an otherwise weak plot.

Similarly, the grand entries and exits of the other actors such as Bobby Deol were used to puff up the plot. All the other actors were really good too in their two-bit roles if a little wasted as they were reduced to satellites orbiting Rannvijay.

The film’s BGM is gold. The songs too pack an emotional punch. The direction and editing are equally good even though it falters in the second half becoming tediously long.

Animal is to have a sequel, Animal Park which currently seems to pay homage to John Woo’s Face/Off and hopefully his brand of ‘gun-ballet’. That film eventually became cult so maybe fingers can be crossed. But to be very honest, Animal’s trailer (which is brilliantly made) gives it more complexity than it possesses.

Killers of the Flower Moon (2023) #SherylPuthur

Directed By: Martin Scorsese

Screenplay By: Eric Roth; Martin Scorsese

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio; Robert De Niro; Lily Gladstone; Jesse Plemons; Tantoo Cardinal; Cara Jade Myers; JaNae Collins; Jillian Dion; Jason Isbell; William Belleau; John Lithgow; Brendan Fraser

Language: English; Osage                                             

Genre: Crime; Drama; Western

Run Time: 3 hours 26 minutes

Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon delves into the infamous history of the Osage Murders known as the Reign of Terror. However, unlike the eponymous book which is a non-fictional investigative text on the Bureau of Investigation’s efforts (later FBI) at uncovering the murders and cover-ups in Oklahoma, the film’s focal point is through the marriage of Molly Kyle (Lily Gladstone) and Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio).

We are told that the Osage Nation were forced to move to Oklahoma, an arid patch of land, giving up their ancestral spaces. They found oil in these lands making them overnight one of the richest communities in the US. The oil brought unbelievable wealth but it also brought white profiteers who believed that they had to ‘rescue’ the land and its wealth from the ‘incompetent people’ who own it. The Osage, according to US law, were declared ‘incompetent’ by the government and were given white benefactors/overseers who managed their property and gave them an allowance.

Into such a background, we have the entry of Ernest Burkhart. Discharged from service during the WWI, he comes to live with his uncle William Hale (Robert De Niro) or King Hale as he was known. Ernest, we are told, was a cook in the army. He was discharged because his injury would not permit him to do hard labour. We realise also that he is dim-witted. He is thus presented right from the beginning as a harmless man who cannot be a threat. And yet, a perfect pawn.

We see that Molly and Ernest are happily married; he is a devoted father and husband. But King Hale continues to be a spectre looming over not just Molly’s family but the entire community since he has ingratiated himself to the Osage Nation by learning the language, the customs and seemingly respecting it.

We are shown frequent, brutal deaths with obvious perpetrators and yet the fact that no one questions it means that they are performed with the tacit approval of the local law enforcement agency. There is a sham of a medical service – ‘treatment’ for the Osage illnesses as well as coroners who are hiding the cause of death rather than revealing it. Even the illnesses plaguing the Osage such as diabetes are not discussed in detail, but in passing referenced as a result of the consumption of a white diet unsuitable to the Osage. These conversations seemingly bemoaning the poor health practises is matched by high sugar dishes being served constantly.

Much more deep-seated is a racial framework that believes that the Osage, like other Native American tribespeople, do not deserve autonomy. They are not even seen as people. One of the most chilling dialogues is, when there is a discussion planning out the murder of Molly’s sister Reta (JaNae Collins) and her white husband (Jason Isbell). They are referenced as “a man and his blanket” – she is reduced to the traditional wearing blanket that Osage women wore and maybe the fact that she is but just his financial safety net. Marriage to white men, gave the Osage women seeming control over their property but in reality, the white overseer was now not court-appointed but the husband.  

Even the fact that the Osage Nation needed to pay the FBI to conduct an investigation points out at the flawed state of affairs. One of the scenes that is increasingly repeated to a disturbing effect, is Molly looking at an intimate family gathering and finding it slowly filling up with unfamiliar people – they are white, ‘family’, smiling and yet dangerous. Even the scenes of the house’s interior, starkly changes from when she first invites Ernest over for dinner to when it is teeming with white people. The whole thing works like a metaphor for the settler colony that America is.

Much of the criticism levelled against the film has been about how it is more about white people and not the Osage expressing themselves in primary positions. However, when the point is to poke holes in racial privilege, it needs to come from a space where it becomes harder and harder to justify. Other peoples’ emotions can be discounted – ‘oh they feel too much’ – but buffoonery? Harder to explain.

The players engaging in it may be entirely oblivious of the flaws of their argument because to begin with, racism is one of those systems founded not on logic, because reason cannot be the bedrock of prejudice, but a blind cult-like belief. And nothing is more blinding than greed. We see that reflected when Ernest, in a scene similar to Molly’s disquiet at the unfamiliarity of her intimate family gathering, walks into the Hale house and is faced by grim-faced white people who look strangely alike and frightening. And much like a cult, they brainwash Ernest to parrot their ideas.

Personally, the film played out like a black comedy crime thriller because the conclusion seemed obvious. Even if you wanted to wish it away, it was like a foregone calamity – a complete train wreck. There is romance in Killers of the Flower Moon but it is not a romance. It is the antithesis. It is a betrayal.