True Masculinity: The Godfather vs Animal

“A man who doesn't spend time with his family can never be a real man.” Vito Corleone, The Godfather

Animal— a film whose roar is still echoing after a year of its release.

Beyond its captivating music, the director’s uncompromising storytelling, impeccable attention to detail, and visually striking cinematography, Animal polarised its audience due to its portrayal of violence and controversial themes— which is not the primary focus of this blog post. This piece is more of a personal take, analysing the film and its inspiration.

In The Godfather, we witness the transformation of Michael Corleone as he’s forced into the family business after an assassination attempt on his father, the ageing head of a powerful Mafia family. If you’re as obsessed with the film as I am, you’ll see parallels in Animal. In this film, the son of a wealthy industrialist returns home after an assassination attempt on his father. What follows is his hunt for revenge to secure his father’s life.

At the heart of it, The Godfather is a film that explores complex family dynamics and loyalty despite its gangster movie exterior. At the same time, Animal is a heavily stylised gangster movie, posing as a family drama. Which is better? It depends on the individual.

Characterisation

The complex character arcs in The Godfather stimulate the audience emotionally and mentally. Michael Corleone’s psychological journey from being the reluctant, prodigal son to taking over the very family business he once despised is the ultimate tragedy that urges you to feel for and with him. Meanwhile, Ranvijay’s character arc is barely an arc— portrayed as just another rich, spoilt brat from Delhi who acts his money. While the assassination attempt on his father is shown as a pivotal point in Michael’s transformation, in Animal, it merely serves as a good excuse for Ranvijay to unleash the animal he always has been. Even after years away from his family, his unchanged behaviour shows his lack of self-awareness, growth, and disregard for others. This makes it difficult for the audience to empathise with him. However, is it even possible to empathise with a narcissist?

Take, for instance, this 30-second scene from The Godfather Part II, where Michael is speaking of the assassination attempt on him in his home, where the importance of his family is re-established despite his role as the Don now.

Transcript: In my home! In my bedroom, where my wife sleeps! Where my children come to 

play with their toys. In my home.

In stark contrast, we have Ranvijay— a self-proclaimed alpha male who doesn’t hesitate to bring a gun into the bedroom, threatening to kill his wife simply because she dared to voice out an opinion the audience has likely been thinking for the past hour. Although it may seem minor to some, trivial details like this make a narrative compelling and a character relatable.

Narrative

As someone who has rewatched Arjun Reddy about thirteen times, I must acknowledge the avant-garde cinematic vision Mr Vanga brings to his work. An undeniable rawness draws you in and leaves you wanting more. (If I delve into the specificities of why his films feel different, this post would risk becoming a thesis).

Similarly, Animal is a film that thrives on shock value and keeps the audience hooked. Yet, the film falls short due to its lack of character depth and superficial portrayal of masculinity, failing to attain the emotional resonance found in The Godfather. This is where the difference lies. This is why I would willingly revisit Arjun Reddy but not Animal. After one point, the body doubling and the jarring cheating trope in the name of daddy love feel exhausted and diminish any potential hope for relatability (and, may I say, narrative unreliability?)

Some might argue that Ranvijay is not a character made for audience empathy. On the contrary, the director wants us to understand and even sympathise with him. A case in point: the climax scene in which he cries inconsolably. Movies often feature morally grey or hateful characters, but there’s usually a clear emotional core even in those cases. Animal struggles to achieve this consistency and constantly juggles with our perception of Ranvijay.

Personal Reflection

Animal surely captivated its audience with sensory experiences— such as shock tactics, rhythmic dialogue, atmospheric score, and shifts in storytelling —creating an experience that’s hard to ignore. However, once the dust settles, a closer look (perhaps a rewatch or further thinking) reveals the lack of character depth and plot complexity beneath the surface. I think the controversies surrounding the film and the director himself overshadow the film’s actual shortcomings. Hence, this blog post.

Despite the masses’ keen reception, reflected in its box office collections, the movie ultimately left me with a hollow feeling due to its reliance on style over substance. What, with a few tweaks, could’ve easily been a homage to the classic, missed the mark so dramatically. 

Conclusion

Sandeep Reddy Vanga aimed to create a compelling father-son love story with Animal, but it ultimately fell short due to its lack of character development, nuance, and substance. It’s a film that’s easy to admire for its audacity but difficult to connect with on an emotional level (unless you can fully detach a movie from the standard moral compass and associate no emotional value to it).

Thank you for reading so far and going on this ride with me. I appreciate it :)