In Movie Animal, A Father-Son Bond Forged in Violence – A Spectrum of Impact

Ranbir Kapoor's "Animal" explores a violent father-son bond. Is it a glimpse into the future of fatherhood, or a cautionary tale against toxic masculinity?

When I saw Sandeep Reddy Vanga's "Animal," starring Ranbir Kapoor. I found it is a brutal exploration of a father-son relationship built on vengeance and violence. While the film garnered praise for its action sequences and performances, the aggressive bond between the protagonists, particularly Ranbir Kapoor's character, sparks a crucial conversation. It is this a portrayal of a future father-son dynamic, and is it beneficial to the youth? I am concerned about our future of the generation.

Ranbir Kapoor's "Animal" explores a violent father-son bond. Is it a glimpse into the future of fatherhood, or a cautionary tale against toxic masculinity?

The Father-Son Dynamic: A Web of Toxicity

In "Animal," Ranbir Kapoor plays the son of a powerful, ruthless industrialist. Upon learning of an assassination attempt on his father, he embarks on a relentless path of revenge, mirroring his father's violent tendencies. This intense bond is fueled by a shared sense of masculinity and a distorted perception of family loyalty. Therefore, the film depicts a father-son relationship where love manifests through violence and the pursuit of power. It goes beyond the unimaginable revenge. Isn't it gives a bad message to the society? Check out the latest movie recommendations here from Hollywood and beyond.

This portrayal raises concerns about the potential normalization of such aggressive behavior within families. While the film doesn't explicitly glorify this dynamic, the sheer intensity and unwavering support between father and son, despite their violent actions, could be misconstrued by some viewers. What the director wanted to convey in this movie? The action, or the emotional bond between bather and son? Or it was the power of money of his subconscious mind.

A Dystopian Vision of the Future Family?

While the film doesn't claim to depict a universally applicable future father-son bond, it does raise a pertinent question: are we witnessing a societal shift towards a more aggressive and individualistic approach to family relationships? It has landed a big question on the parents of today. They are thinking about the future of their kids, especially, those are who living middle class family. If the industrialist family members or so. Behave like this then what about middle people. They will be the victims for sure.

The changing dynamics of family structures, coupled with the increasing emphasis on personal ambition and instant gratification, could potentially lead to a rise in emotionally distant and potentially violent family bonds. "Animal" serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting the dangers of prioritizing violence and dominance within the family unit.

Ranbir Kapoor's Character: A Detrimental Role Model?

Ranbir Kapoor's portrayal of a son consumed by vengeance and mirroring his father's violent tendencies is a far cry from the conventional heroic characters often associated with him. While his performance is undoubtedly powerful, the character itself presents a potentially harmful role model for young audiences.

The unwavering loyalty and willingness to inflict violence, even in the name of family, could resonate with some viewers, particularly those struggling with anger management or navigating complex family dynamics. It's crucial to recognize that the film presents an extreme and potentially detrimental model of father-son interaction, one that shouldn't be emulated in real life. The revenge could have been some soft molds in and out to bring such aggresive behaviours to the end.

Alternative Perspectives on Father-Son Bonds

Fortunately, "Animal" doesn't represent the sole portrayal of father-son relationships in cinema. Numerous films showcase healthier, more supportive dynamics built on mutual respect, understanding, and open communication. These narratives offer positive role models for young audiences, emphasizing the importance of emotional intelligence, empathy, and conflict resolution within the family unit.

Films like "The Pursuit of Happyness," "To Kill a Mockingbird," and "Captain America: The Winter Soldier" depict father-son bonds that prioritize emotional connection, vulnerability, and guidance. These stories highlight the positive impact healthy father figures can have on shaping young men into responsible and emotionally mature individuals.

Conclusion: Promoting Healthier Father-Son Relationships

While "Animal" presents a compelling yet disturbing portrayal of an aggressive father-son bond, it's crucial to recognize it as an outlier rather than a harbinger of the future. It serves as a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls of prioritizing violence and dominance within families.

Instead, promoting narratives that showcase healthy father-son relationships built on open communication, emotional support, and mutual respect is essential. By highlighting the positive aspects of these bonds, we can encourage young men to develop into emotionally intelligent and responsible individuals, fostering healthier family dynamics for generations to come. FliXD: Find your next favorite film!

It's important to note that the film likely doesn't intend to present a universally applicable vision of the future father-son bond. However, it sparks a vital conversation about the potential consequences of glorifying violence and prioritizing power within families. Such behaviour of oneself will never be tolerated by socity and only look good in the movie. However, it gives cold impact on the generation like a slow poison and kills our long built family values. By recognizing the film's portrayal as an extreme example and actively promoting healthier alternatives, we can ensure that future generations embrace more positive and constructive father-son relationships.

Mahatma Gandhi And Leo Tolstoy letters and it’s benefits

Silence is futile: Leo Tolstoy's letter to Mahatma Gandhi
Leo Tolstoy

The opinions and principles of Mahatma Gandhi are worldwide famous and one of the letters which were sent to Leo Tolstoy, he felt so happy upon reading them. He found that Mohandas Gandhi on the track of non-resistance. In the Mahatma Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy letters, According to Leo’s reply in the letter below which was sent to Gandhi in the year 1910, 7th September. Tolstoy said that non-resistance is the discipline Of love unperformed by false interpretations. Moreover, he added, love is supreme and unique law and the manifestation occurs and seen in soul of infants. However, the man feels it and never blinded by doctrine of the world.

However, there are numbers of philosophies according to ancient culture of the countries like Indian, Chinese, Hebrew, Greek, and Roman where there is violence. The love is incompatible is the most common law of the nature. Therefore, one who has admitted to violence, the theory of love found futile. Thus, it stands to exist.

If there is a resistance aside love, it straight says there is no love in between and hence law of existence does not exist. As well as there is no other law but violence. Tolstoy also shaded lights on Christian on love and violence. According to him, the law of love expressed so clearly by Christians. His opinion on inner contradiction are all the real story of socialism, communism, growing criminalizes, unemployment and illogical luxuries of riches.

Further, he stated that the life of Christian people have categorized love and violence into two utter contradictions. The love recognized as the law of life and on the other hand, violence as predictable in different departments of life like government sectors.

One of the Mahatma Gandhi and Leo Tolstoy letters on non-resistance

I have received your journal Indian Opinion, and I am happy to know all that is written on non-resistance. I wish to communicate to you the thoughts which are aroused in me by the reading of those articles. The more I live—and specially now that I am approaching death—the more I feel inclined to express to others the feelings which so strongly move my being, and which, according to my opinion, are of great importance. That is, what one calls non-resistance, is in reality nothing else but the discipline of love.
Unreformed by false interpretation. Love is the aspiration for communion and solidarity with other souls, and that aspiration always liberates the source of noble activities. That love is the supreme and unique law of human life, which everyone feels in the depth of one's soul. We find it manifested most clearly in the soul of the infants. Man feels it, so long as he is not blinded by the false doctrines of the world. That law of love has been promulgated by all the philosophies—Indian, Chinese, Hebrew, Greek, and Roman. I think that it had been most clearly expressed by Christ, who said that in that law is contained both the law and the Prophets.

But he has done more; anticipating the deformation to which that law is exposed, he indicated directly the danger of such deformation, which is natural to people who live only for worldly interests. The danger consists precisely in permitting one's self to defend those interests by violence; that is to say, as he has expressed, returning blow by blows, and taking back by force things that have been taken from us, and so forth. Christ knew also, just as all reasonable human beings must know, that the employment of violence is incompatible with love, which is the fundamental law of life. He knew that,
once violence is admitted, doesn't matter in even a single case, the law of love is thereby rendered futile. That is to say, that the law of love ceases to exist.

The whole Christian civilization, so brilliant in the exterior, has grown up on this misunderstanding and this flagrant and strange contradiction, sometimes conscious, but mostly unconscious. In reality, as soon as resistance is admitted by the side of love, love no longer exists and cannot exist as the law of existence; and if the law of love cannot exist, therein remains no other law except that of violence, that is, the right of the mighty. It was thus that the Christian society has lived during these nineteen centuries. It is a fact that all the time people were following only violence in the organisation of society.

But the difference between the ideals of Christian peoples and that of other nations lies only in this: that, in Christianity, the law of love had been expressed so clearly and definitely as has never been expressed in any other religious doctrine; that the Christian world had solemnly accepted that law, although at the same time it had permitted the employment of violence and on that violence it had constructed their whole life. Consequently, the life of the Christian peoples is an absolute contradiction between their profession and the basis of their life; contradiction between love recognised as the law of life, and violence recognised as inevitable in different departments of life: like Governments, Tribunals, Army, etc., which are recognised and praised. That contradiction developed with the inner development of the Christian world and has attained its paroxysm in recent days.

At present, the question poses itself evidently in the following manner: either it must be admitted that we do not recognise any discipline, religious or moral, and that we are guided in the organisation of life only by the law of force. Or that all the taxes that we exact by force, the judicial and police organisations. And, above all, the army must be abolished. This spring, in the religious examination of a secondary school of girls in Moscow. The Professor of Catechism, as well as the Bishop, had questioned the young girls on the Ten commandments and above all on the sixth “Thou shalt not kill”.

When the examiner received a good reply, the Bishop generally paused for another question: Is killing proscribed by the sacred Law always and in all cases? And the poor young girls perverted by their teachers must reply: No, not always; killing is permitted during war, and for the execution of criminals. However, one of those unfortunate girls, (what I relate is not a fiction but a fact that has been transmitted to me by an eyewitness) having been asked the same question, “Is killing always a crime?” was moved deeply, blushed and replied with decision “Yes, always.” To all the sophisticated questions habitual to the Bishop, she replied with firm conviction: killing is always forbidden in the Old Testament as well as by Christ, who not only forbids killing but all wickedness against our neighbours. In spite of all his oratorical talent and all his imposing grandeur, the Bishop was obliged to beat a retreat and the young girl came out victorious. Yes, we can discuss in our journals the progress in aviation and such other discoveries, the complicated diplomatic relations, the different clubs and alliances, the so-called artistic creations, etc., and pass in silence what was affirmed by the young girl.

But silence is futile in such cases because everyone in this Christian world is feeling the same, more or less vaguely, like that girl. Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, Salvation Army, the growing criminalities, unemployment and absurd luxuries of the rich, augmented without limit, and the awful misery of the poor, the terribly increasing number of suicides-all

these are the signs of that inner contradiction which must be there and which cannot be resolved; and, without doubt, can only be resolved by acceptation of the law of love and by the rejection of all sorts of violence. Consequently, your work in Transvaal, which seems to be far away from the centre of our world, is yet the most fundamental and the most important to us. Supplying the most weighty practical proof in which the world can now share and with which must participate not only the Christians but all the peoples of the world. I think that it would give you pleasure to know that with us in Russia, a similar movement is also developing rapidly under the form of the refusal of military services augmenting year after year. However, small may be the number of your participators in non-resistance and the number of those in Russia who refuse military service.

Both the one and the other may assert with audacity that “God is with us” and “God is more powerful than men”. Between the confession of Christianity, even under the perverted form in which it appears among us Christian peoples. And, the simultaneous recognition of the necessity of armies and of the preparation for killing on an ever-increasing scale. There exists a contradiction so flagrant and crying that sooner or later, probably very soon. It must invariably manifest itself in utter nakedness; and it will lead us either to renounce the Christian religion.

And to maintain the governmental power, or to renounce the existence of the army and all the forms of violence which the state supports and which are more or less necessary to sustain its power. That contradiction is felt by all the governments, by your British Government as well as by our Russian Government. And, therefore, by the spirit of conservatism natural to these governments, the opposition is persecuted, as we find in Russia as well as in the articles of your journal, more than any other anti-governmental activity. The governments know from which direction comes the principal danger and try to defend themselves with a great zeal in that trial not merely to preserve their interests but actually to fight for their very existence.

With my perfect esteem,

LEO TOLSTOY