O' Romeo - About The Animalification Of Movies

In this world I live in, it's dangerous to state I'm a fan of Sandeep Reddy Vanga - the man who directed "Animal", and it's justified, to be honest. Because you never know how much may a movie impact someone, but lately we've been seeing how it impacts other movies.

O' Romeo, the latest installment of a Vishal Bhardwaj film. The reason I went for the movie is because he's the most praised as a director, known for his slow but steady storytelling, his cinematography, soundtrack and direction - And I went in with an optimistic mindset, but it was a crazy experience to find out all I could draw out was a parallel - a parallel between other movies that've tried to imitate elements of the "Animal" film with overtly bloody violence, toxic "masculinity" and foul language - which the director justifies as it's with the same frequency people in this generation use in their daily lives. Which I'd consider valid too, but I wonder if that'd be the case for necks being sliced with knives and adoption of toxic personas.

All I could think during the movie was "Man, this movie is trying so hard to be Animal. And if it's trying so hard to be my favorite movie....why am I having such a hard time liking it?"

I found myself engrossed in a movie with weak, stretched storyline, failing to justify the kills, violence, character decisions - all enabling a weak emotional connect not just viewer-to-character but even character-to-character, all leading to a very weak landing of the climax and the end. Though I must commend Shahid Kapoor and Tripti Dimtri's versatile and expressive acting that added a mainstream essence to this film.

That's when I realized everything Animal did right. Be it showing us the formation of a human morphing into a character, In Business Ethics, we're learning this thing called consequentialism. A theory where a person believes the end justifies the means - that's exactly what Animal does, it can be perceived as a "good" person having to do "bad" things, be it out of being emotionally and materially blinded, to get what he needs. Very literally, Animalistic.

 This leaves the viewer in a dilemma, do we Root for this character or hate him? Even harder when Vanga had stylized the character so well, giving him a personality that boosts the average adrenaline. Shock factors that sometimes left the viewer in awe, excitement or a sense of uncomfortable vibe. Most importantly, this movie gives consequences to its main character for being a terrible person in the process of achieving their goal. But  keeps the consequence weak in order to keep it socially realistic. Bad people don't always get what they deserve. He also kept the bloodshed in a light justifiable, and foul language wasn't a hardcore focus of the movie at all, never used just for the sake of it.

Vanga did so many things right, but he also made his agenda to anger every movie critic and conservative person ever, He did so, rightfully. I remember when this movie had released, I was excited to tell my friend group of that time about everything this movie did right from an analytical and semi-social point of view. But they shut me down, dejected the idea of even hearing my view which dismayed me. Although, all the more gave me faith to put more effort in this blog.

So to the industry that pushed Baaghi 4, Marco, King, and now even convinced a great director to test the same path through O' Romeo - The crowd will literally accept anything and everything if given a good story. But they will reject if you only give them the minute building blocks. 

A chef, and a group of kids are the same - they will judge you for the dish you serve them, but not if you give them a plastic spoon or a golden one to eat with.

Why did the male community blatently love Animal, why do adults still cry when watching an animated movie centered around talking race cars or talking toys? Did they not fear in this case that their emotional of social views would take the stage? Their views would automatically be assumed senseless. I agree with having to seriously study the impact these movies may make on society, but that's a paradox which further enables us to question the maturity of an audience, even if considered mature by movie-makers - and how much they allow a movie to influence themselves.

Things don't need to make sense, they just need to allow us to sense a making. A making of a good story, an experimentation, a statement said without saying a word. That - is where true writing lies.