Cinema is an effective tool for addressing societal issues and shaping collective perceptions, as demonstrated by the review of Slumdog Millionaire (Gupta & Gupta, 2013). Functioning as a medium, cinema plays a vital role in constructing societal impressions, and the idolization of actors significantly influences public view and doings. Since its inception in the 1890s, cinema has functioned as a medium for entertainment and propaganda, reflecting national cultures and concerns worldwide (Cinemas of the World, 2003). This form of media captures attention and engagement. Learning theories emphasize the significance of attentiveness and engagement for effective learning, which means people can learn quickly from cinema. Indian cinema has long depicted women as helpless, reinforcing male heroism (Himabindu et al., 2014).

In our journey of societal advancement, media hold an influential role, acting as a cultural mirror and a force shaping our thoughts. “Animal,” a recent film, has sparked intense debates regarding filmmakers’ responsibility and the unsettling impact of media, particularly concerning violence against women. The nexus between academic research and on-screen realities forms the crux of this discourse. One of our research works, delving into the influence of parental violence on men’s perspectives regarding domestic abuse, underscores a nuanced finding — a challenging childhood does not inherently lead to adult violence; education, awareness, and financial stability can tip the scales (Chandra, Srivastava, Mukherjee, et al., 2023; Chandra, Srivastava, Singh, et al., 2023). This nuance gains significance when confronting films like Animal (2023) and Kabir Singh (2019), seemingly glorifying violence and misogyny. Also, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report shows an increase in crime against women by 4% over 2021 (NCRB, 2022), which is concerning.

The strong reactions to Animal transcend mere disapproval; they echo a broader societal concern. Beyond criticizing a film, the discourse questions the ethical dimensions of narrative shapers. Animal is not an isolated incident; it epitomizes a pervasive issue — the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes, the trivialization of violence against women, and the distortion of heroism into something grotesque. Scrutinizing the film reveals a portrayal of hyper-violent heroism and the normalization of toxic masculinity, extending far beyond cinema screens. The film’s focus on sexual and physical abuse, the objectification of women, and the glorification of fear and trauma mirrors societal struggles.

More disconcerting is the apparent lack of checks and balances in the creative process. While the Censor Board scrutinizes superficial aspects, it often disregards the underlying narratives perpetuating harmful ideologies. This dissonance raises questions about the priorities of those ensuring that what reaches audiences aligns with societal values. As wielders of a potent pen, filmmakers bear an ethical responsibility beyond mere entertainment. The disparity between the Board’s focus and the evident issues in films like Animal indicates a systemic failure.

Crafting narratives that foster positive social change, challenge stereotypes, and contribute to dismantling toxic masculinity is not optional but a responsibility filmmakers cannot ignore. The impact of movies like Animal extends beyond cinema halls. It infiltrates collective consciousness, subtly and profoundly influencing attitudes. Glorifying a hyper-violent character as a hero conveys a dangerous message, especially when such movies find substantial audiences. The concern is not exclusive to the urban elite; it extends to the heartland (rural), where these narratives can solidify regressive ideologies.

For someone deeply entrenched in research on violence against women, witnessing the mass appeal of a movie trivializing such violence is disheartening. It serves as a stark reminder that the battle for gender equity, feminism, and dismantling toxic masculinity is far from won. Movies like Animal undermine progress and actively contribute to the regression of societal values. The passionate response, particularly from the youth on social media, underscores the urgency of the matter. It is not just about criticizing a film; it is a collective plea for a more accountable media landscape that tunes into societal pulses and acts responsibly as a cultural influence. This is not just an academic concern but intensely personal, rooted in a hunger for social change.

Amidst the uproar against movies like Animal, there exists an opportunity for introspection and transformation. Instead of dismissing criticism as mere outrage, the industry needs to reflect on the narratives it perpetuates and their impact on impressionable minds. This is not a call for censorship but a plea for self-regulation, for an industry aware of its power to shape societal values and willing to wield that power responsibly. The urgency of this matter cannot be overstated. While strides in gender equity are celebrated and outdated norms challenged, movies like “Animal” threaten to erase progress. It serves as a wake-up call for filmmakers, the industry, and society. We must collectively demand better, not just for entertainment’s sake but for the narratives we consume and the values they propagate.

In the face of movies glorifying misogyny and violence, our response defines our commitment to progress. It is a call to action, not for censorship, but for a more thoughtful and accountable media landscape. As we critique Animal and its counterparts, let us not lose sight of the more significant battle — the battle for a media that does not just entertain but enlightens, that does not just reflect but actively shapes the narratives of our shared reality.

References:

Chandra, R., Srivastava, S., Mukherjee, S., Singh, A., & Patel, J. K. (2023). Men’s Childhood Exposure to Parental Violence and their Indulgence in IPV: An Empirical Analysis of Wife-Beating Justification as a Moderator Variable. Victims & Offenders, 00(00), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2023.2218358

Chandra, R., Srivastava, S., Singh, A., Mukherjee, S., & Patel, J. K. (2023). Locating perpetrators of violence against women in India: An analysis of married men’s characteristics associated with intimate partner violence. PLOS ONE, 18(8), e0289596. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0289596

Cinemas of the world: Film and society from 1895 to present. (2003). Choice Reviews Online, 41(04), 41-2062-41–2062. https://doi.org/10.5860/CHOICE.41-2062

Gupta, S. B., & Gupta, S. (2013). Representation of social issues in cinema with specific reference to Indian cinema: Case study of Slumdog Millionaire. The Marketing Review, 13(3), 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934713X13747454353619

Himabindu, B. L., Arora, R., & Prashanth, N. S. (2014). Whose problem is it anyway? Crimes against women in India. Global Health Action, 7(1), 23718. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v7.23718

NCRB. (2022). Crime in India.

***

Sonal Srivastava is a Research Associate at Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) Mumbai. Jeetendra Kumar Patel is a doctoral student at the Department of General and Applied Geography, School of Applied Sciences, Dr Harisingh Gour Central University, Sagar.