Javed Akhtar denounces Animal as dangerous - Page 4

Originally posted by: myviewprem

Animal is definetly problematic

But even in 70s and 80s toxic male misgoynistic movies were galore

Even Amitabh bachchan acted in them. Like in one movie he kidnaps amritasingh and makes her do menial job because shes rich and think too hi-fi for herself (i had watched on TV do not know name)

In Dharam veer movie Dharmendra kidnaps heroine a princess and makes her do his mom seva

In 1990s salman does same to neelam kidnaps her makes her take care of his neice nephews

Even in 2000s misgynostic male movies were there. Why in 70s 80s and 90s in 50s also male hero were miosgynostic made their wives press their legs and fall at their feet like tripti dimtri in animal to prove wife love

Some of these 70s-80s were written by Javed Akhtar only

But that also does not mean we do same in 2020s too. Many indians are getting educated and working abroad. If they show such scenes by educated US returned hero than what will they show a less educated not so rich guy doing?

In general in last 5 years movies are becoming more male oriented and misgynostic by nature.

Hero nowadays is acting more villanish by nature than any real hero quality

I guess world and society is going back to how it was in 16th centrury values. Where mughals and khilji times had suppressed women and common ppl in general. Look at russia-ukraine whats happening from 2 years and no one not even UN/US dare speak against all are blind or looking their own benefits than morals or righteousness. That is how society has become ppl are individualistic after profits not after moral science or truth or righteousness etc unlike our parents/grand parents generations. Today its do anything but get on top and get first at any cost get rich at any cost

Before we would say look at US such selfish individual society now even asia and full world become same all look their own benefits and not bothered about impact on family, relatives, neighbours or society as whole. That is what Ranbir kapoor and vanga looked for hits and money not what impact animal has on society or young immature vulnerable men

It's highly unrealistic to expect all the worlds problems to be solved by a Movie.

Moreover, most people go to the theaters to get away. People want entertainment that stretch boundaries, and something that glues one to the big screen. The truth is however which way we sell morality, we will never figure out the true algorithm for an all time blockbuster.

And you cheated on your wife

I think he just want to be in the news

Originally posted by: Cpt.DudleySmith

Perhaps he prefers family oriented content produced by his kids like Mirzapur where a wheelchair-ridden bhudau asks his daughter in law to ride him .

Apni hi beti ka Made In Heaven dekh leta, bhatero problematic character mil jaate.

Pehla toh Animal ke protagonist ki movie ke end mein lag jaati hai. Woh life ke sabse Aziz () insaan ko kho deta hai. Uske baad uski family bhi usko chhod ke chale jaati hai. Toh basically end mein uske saath bura hota hai, achha nahin.

Doosra: yeh film ka title hai Animal. Iska protagonist insaan nahin, jaanwar hai. Think of it like Raman Raghav 2.0. Kitne log outrage hue us pichchar mein? I'm guessing yeh burger-critic log ke morals us time pe so rahe honge.

Yeh ek adult movie hai jiska protagonist problematic hai. Agar itna samajhne ka bheja nahin hai toh mat dekho pichchar. Yeh chhati peet peet ke RR karke kuchh nahin honga. Movie ko dangerous bolna is effectively call to invoke 'cancel' culture. Bunch of jealous losers.

Many people here believe that movies are only for entertainment and should not be viewed through a moral lens. But movies can be viewed through many lenses in the grand scheme of things. There is the entertainment lens, there is the artistic lens, and there is a sociocultural lens. And even if a movie delivers in terms of entertainment value - it can fail through other lenses.

Irrespective of your opinions on the movie. I think most people should be able to agree on the following.

1) A character who makes a woman lick his feet is not heroic and should not be lauded.

2) It is ok to be entertained, but anyone who lauds and cheers the character who makes a woman lick his feet is problematic.

3) Perhaps not all people who enjoyed this movie support violence against women, but it can be challenging to discern whether a person is supporting a movie for entertainment only or is actually cheering on misogyny and violence. And those who cheer misogyny and violence, be it in a movie or elsewhere, are a problem in society.

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Many people here believe that movies are only for entertainment and should not be viewed through a moral lens. But movies can be viewed through many lenses in the grand scheme of things. There is the entertainment lens, there is the artistic lens, and there is a sociocultural lens. And even if a movie delivers in terms of entertainment value - it can fail through other lenses.

Irrespective of your opinions on the movie. I think most people should be able to agree on the following.

1) A character who makes a woman lick his feet is not heroic and should not be lauded.

2) It is ok to be entertained, but anyone who lauds and cheers the character who makes a woman lick his feet is problematic.

3) Perhaps not all people who enjoyed this movie support violence against women, but it can be challenging to discern whether a person is supporting a movie for entertainment only or is actually cheering on misogyny and violence. And those who cheer misogyny and violence, be it in a movie or elsewhere, are a problem in society.

The excessive rambling has manifested tremendous clarity that one hasn't watched the movie

Originally posted by: rckRadhe

The excessive rambling has manifested tremendous clarity that one hasn't watched the movie

If I could write papers on books, I DID NOT READ and get an A+ courtesy of Cliff Notes. I don't see why it should be any different for movies.

Besides, I'm in marketing. I haven't used or tried everything I have promoted, either.

Originally posted by: rckRadhe

The excessive rambling has manifested tremendous clarity that one hasn't watched the movie

The real question is, did Vanga watch it?

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

If I could write papers on books, I DID NOT READ and get an A+ courtesy of Cliff Notes. I don't see why it should be any different for movies.

Besides, I'm in marketing. I haven't used or tried everything I have promoted, either.

Watch the movie, for it shouldn't be unaffordable in one's line of profession or get the script on Cliff Notes.

Originally posted by: NoraSM

The real question is, did Vanga watch it?

Vanga's script would know the difference between a foot and a shoe ... isn't it?