Intriguingly, the movie “Animal” has ignited a heated debate due to its perceived toxicity, prompting many to question why it hasn’t faced a ban. While valid concerns exist, delving into a broader perspective reveals the complexities surrounding banning and proposes alternative solutions. Warning: A detailed exploration follows.
Banning vs. Addressing Root Causes:
Drawing parallels with societal vices, questions arise about why cigarettes, alcohol, junk food, and exorbitant school fees persist despite their known negative impacts. The limited effectiveness of bans becomes apparent, as seen with the underground accessibility of banned content like pornography in India, fostering black markets and making control more challenging.
Addressing the core issues, beyond just the movie “Animal,” involves tackling the underlying societal causes of aggression, violence, and toxic masculinity. This includes promoting healthy relationships, emotional intelligence, and challenging harmful stereotypes.
Understanding Audience Psychology:
examining audience psychology unveils the movie’s allure. “Animal” taps into primal instincts, mirroring desires for narratives exploring aggression, power dynamics, lust, and taboo subjects. The controversial nature of the movie, even if negative, feeds into the audience’s desire for recognition and notoriety.
Director’s Intention and Audience Response:
Sandeep Reddy Vanga, the director, intentionally provokes societal norms, evident in his track record with provocative content like “Arjun Reddy” and “Kabir Singh.” The success of “Animal,” earning 500+ crores, raises questions about the true culprit – the director or the resonating sentiments of the public.
Alternatives to Banning:
Proposing alternatives to banning involves implementing age restrictions, parental guidance, and media literacy education. Age-appropriate ratings can shield younger audiences, while open communication and guidance from parents equip children with critical thinking skills. Media literacy education empowers individuals to critically analyze and interpret content, fostering healthy media consumption habits.
Concluding Thoughts:
While some label “Animal” as toxic, the argument against an outright ban emphasizes that it wouldn’t necessarily address the deeper societal issues. A comprehensive approach addressing root causes, promoting critical thinking, and encouraging open dialogue emerges as crucial. Additionally, alternative solutions like age restrictions and media literacy can safeguard vulnerable audiences.
Even if bans were implemented, the ease of accessing content elsewhere, through platforms like OTT, raises doubts about the efficacy of such measures. Small-time filmmakers and web series find audiences on OTT, challenging the practicality and effectiveness of banning.
In light of this, the passage prompts reflection on what truly warrants banning in India, considering the complexities, practicalities, and potential societal impact of such decisions.