Introduction: The Thin Veneer of Progressiveness and the Power of Silence

Anand Ekarshi’s debut feature Aattam is a masterclass in disassembling the performative progressiveness that men often wear as a mask. The film critiques male hypocrisy and explores how even spaces that women consider safe can turn hostile when they assert their agency. Through a meticulous, dialogue-heavy narrative that unravels the dynamics of male behaviour, power, and complicity, it offers a critical lens through which we can view the complexities of patriarchy, the #MeToo movement, and the systemic disbelief women face.

Rooted in an adaptation of Girish Karnad’s Hayavadana and influenced by 12 Angry Men, the film positions Anjali (Zarin Shihab), as the sole female presence in a drama troupe dominated by men. Her decade-long tenure is marked by harassment that the men, initially sympathetic, slowly invalidate as they reveal their complicity in patriarchal structures. The film resists providing villains or clear answers, exposing how systems of power operate through everyday behaviours. This article critically analyzes the film using feminist theories, focusing on the intersection of power, gender bias, disbelief, and the systemic challenges women face in seeking justice.

The unseen nature of violence, particularly when it occurs without witnesses or remains unobserved in the film, emphasizes the limitations of legalistic justice. By deliberately choosing not to depict the act of harassment, the film critiques society’s fixation on irrefutable evidence and underscores the structural silencing that perpetuates gender inequality. The climax underscores the futility of searching for a definitive answer to the question of “who” or “why.” By the end, the act of violence becomes almost irrelevant. What matters is how the men’s behaviour shifts in response to Anjali’s allegations, revealing the deep-seated misogyny that lurks beneath their progressive façades.

The Unmasking of Male Hypocrisy: Symbolism of Hayavadana

A key moment in the film involves a performance of Hayavadana, where a beheading reveals the severed head of a horse, symbolizing strength, courage, and freedom. This scene mirrors the film’s central narrative, where a scandal involving sexual harassment unravels the hidden truths about the men in the troupe. The men, who initially appear to be Anjali’s allies, slowly reveal their complicity in maintaining a patriarchal status quo. Their progressiveness, much like the horse’s head, is a mask—a thin veneer that peels away as the scandal unfolds.

One crucial scene highlights this fragility when Anjali, the only troupe member to receive accolades post-performance, becomes the target of envy and resentment. Her success bruises male egos and disrupts the group’s dynamic, exposing how the male gaze is intertwined with a deep-seated discomfort toward her achievements.

Similarly, another scene captures how the men believe another man’s version of events without hesitation but doubt Anjali’s testimony immediately, suspecting her of fabricating false allegations. Another moment underscores their complicity: when the men demand evidence beyond her statement, they immediately believe once the proof is presented, only to retract their support upon learning Anjali did not see the perpetrator. The withdrawal is swift, accompanied by accusations of dishonesty and false allegations, demonstrating how male ego is tied to convenience and power dynamics.

In feminist theory, the concept of patriarchal complicity highlights how men, even those who claim to support women, often uphold systems of power that oppress them. The film masterfully uses the backdrop of the play to illustrate the duality of male behaviour—publicly supportive, but privately complicit in the silencing and delegitimizing of women’s experiences. The symbolic beheading is a metaphor for the way these men attempt to “cut off” Anjali’s credibility, severing her from the truth of her narrative.

#MeToo in Malayalam Cinema: Disbelief and the Weaponization of Doubt

The #MeToo movement in India, particularly within Malayalam cinema, exposed a culture of silence and disbelief around sexual harassment. Women who came forward faced scepticism, hostility, and demands for proof, much like the backlash faced by prominent voices such as Parvathy Thiruvothu, who was targeted for speaking out against misogyny in Malayalam cinema. This mirrors the dynamics portrayed in Aattam, where Anjali’s experiences echo the systemic disbelief and personal attacks faced by real-life women in the industry. Initially supportive, the men in the troupe begin to scrutinize Anjali’s motives, using her past and personal life to undermine her credibility.

In this context, the film resonates with feminist philosopher Miranda Fricker’s concept of epistemic injustice, where women’s credibility is unjustly questioned or diminished. Anjali’s struggle illustrates how societal structures frame women’s voices as less trustworthy, often shifting the burden of proof onto survivors. The men’s roles as gatekeepers of truth reflect real-world instances where survivors are disbelieved while perpetrators benefit from systemic doubt.

Theories of Gendered Power and Legalistic Frameworks – Due Process

Theories of gendered power within feminist thought—particularly those advanced by Catharine MacKinnon and bell hooks—address the dynamics of credibility, power, and control that underpin societal disbelief of women. MacKinnon’s work highlights how sexual harassment operates as a mechanism of power, embedding gendered subordination within institutional frameworks. bell hooks, on the other hand, emphasizes intersectionality, exploring how race, class, and gender together shape women’s experiences of power and oppression. Together, their theories provide a nuanced understanding of how societal structures delegitimize women’s voices. MacKinnon’s theory of sexual harassment as an expression of power situates disbelief as a political act, one designed to undermine women and maintain male dominance. This framework is essential to understanding the film, where Anjali’s trauma is compounded by the invalidation of her experience.

The film critiques due process as a patriarchal construct in a subtle way that shifts the burden of proof onto survivors. The men’s insistence on procedural justice mirrors the discourse surrounding the Raya Sarkar list in 2017, which named academics accused of sexual misconduct without adhering to formal legal mechanisms. Some Feminist scholars argue that legalistic approaches often fail women, using procedural formalism to shield perpetrators while retraumatizing survivors (MacKinnon 1989, Crenshaw1991, hooks1984).

The film subtly critiques due process as a patriarchal construct that shifts the burden of proof onto survivors. Feminist scholars, including those who signed the controversial Kafila article, such as Nivedita Menon, defended due process to highlight the need for procedural justice. However, this perspective has been critiqued for its potential to sideline the lived experiences of marginalized women, reflecting the shallowness of upper-caste feminism that often fails to account for intersecting oppressions. Aattam engages with these nuances, critiquing how procedural justice can retraumatize survivors while shielding perpetrators.

The climax reinforces this critique. When Anjali asks the men if they believe her after admitting she did not see the perpetrator, their silence speaks volumes. The camera lingers on each man’s face before returning to Anjali, whose silence becomes a protest. In the end, Anjali reclaims her narrative by turning her story into a theatre performance, becoming the director of the play. This act of storytelling becomes her way of healing and resisting, showcasing how silence, once a tool of oppression, transforms into a powerful form of protest and agency.

The Fragility of Male Ego and the Dynamics of Power

The film intricately portrays the fragile dynamics of male ego and power. The men in the troupe, working-class individuals facing economic precarity, struggle to balance personal survival with moral responsibility. This tension complicates their decisions, illustrating how intersecting oppressions of gender, class, and economic status shape their actions.

However, economic vulnerability does not excuse their behaviour. Their wavering support for Anjali ultimately reflects a desire to maintain their positions of power. For instance, moments where they initially offer public solidarity but retract it when it jeopardizes their authority reveal the complexities of their motives. These actions, such as voting against her during key troupe decisions or refusing to defend her credibility in informal discussions, highlight their internal conflict between moral responsibility and self-preservation. The film critiques the fragility of the male ego, showing how men weaponize doubt and fear-mongering to delegitimize women’s experiences. Anjali’s personal life becomes a battleground, with past relationships and interactions weaponized against her, reinforcing patriarchal norms that equate a woman’s worth with her perceived purity.

Conclusion: Dismantling Patriarchy, Reclaiming Justice

Theories of gendered power and epistemic injustice provide a crucial lens for understanding Aattam. The film’s nuanced portrayal of disbelief, power, and moral disengagement critiques the systemic structures that silence survivors and protect perpetrators. Examining the dynamics of the #MeToo movement and the limitations of procedural justice calls for a reimagined approach to accountability.

Ultimately, the film challenges viewers to confront the fragility of the male ego and the patriarchal systems that perpetuate gender inequality. The question, “If not him, then who?” underscores fostering a society where women’s voices are genuinely heard, believed, and acted upon. Aattam asserts that justice cannot thrive in a world that systematically silences women. The film serves both as a critique of these injustices and a call to action, urging society to move beyond procedural formalism toward a justice framework that centres survivors and holds power accountable.

References

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review.43(6): 1241-1299.

Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press.

hooks, b. (1984). Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. South End Press.

MacKinnon, C. (1989). Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination. Yale University Press.

***

Shruthi Gurumoorthy is working as a program coordinator with the Urban Management Centre. Her work focuses on gender, public spaces, and the built environment, with a particular interest in the barriers women face in accessing these spaces.