People who care for animals go to great pains to sensitise a larger audience on being empathetic to the well being of all sentient beings — including the use of less harsh words, when it comes to discussions on them. The idea being, to tone down the subtle aggression that creeps into social behaviour and translates into violent action against the animal.
And then comes along a film, with a title that could not have been more misinformed and misleading. The film Animal may be drawing flak for its toxic testosterone, reflected in its characters, and worse, its protagonist. Incidentally, an earlier film by the same director was also slammed for its misogyny and regressive portrayal of women. So portraying women and violence seems to be their box-office formula.
But there is another section of the audience, that is scratching its head wondering — why Animal? For anyone who has spent time with animals, the difference would be crystal clear. Animals operate by unwritten laws in the jungle, a deer is safe foraging for food near a lion that has had its fill. Animals do not kill for game and react only out of fear, hunger or when their young ones are threatened.
Compare this to human behaviour at something as mundane as a traffic signal — drivers jump signals, if a policeman is not watching. And ironically, we call such lawlessness “jungle raj”. A cursory glance at the daily news will show up various levels and types of violence humans are capable of inflicting on other humans, animals and environment. And ironically, a film showing violent, degenerate human behaviour is titled — Animal.
No one grudges film-makers their poetic licence. And, there is an understanding that entertainment requires a willing suspension of disbelief. But to mis-portray animals and glorify regressive, violent testosterone-driven behaviour, requires a complete dismantling of sensibilities. And surely, content-creators and actors can do better than endorse such misplaced impressions of art.