Actor Vikas Divyakirti, known for his role in “12th Fail,” voiced strong disapproval of Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s film “Animal,” starring Ranbir Kapoor. Despite the film’s box office success, Divyakirti criticized its content, labeling it as “fuhad” and “badtameez.”
In an interview with Neelesh Misra’s Slow interview, Divyakirti condemned “Animal,” asserting that it regresses society and lacks social value. He expressed concern over the portrayal of the protagonist’s behavior, stating, “A film like Animal takes our society back by 10 years.” Divyakirti questioned the prioritization of financial gain over societal impact, urging for more responsible filmmaking.
Specifically, Divyakirti highlighted the controversial “lick my shoe” scene between Ranbir Kapoor and Triptii Dimri, expressing dismay over its potential influence on impressionable viewers. He raised concerns about the message it sends and the behavior it normalizes, particularly among individuals with feudal mindsets.
Divyakirti’s critique extends beyond the film’s content to its societal implications. He emphasized the need for conscientious storytelling that considers its impact on audiences, particularly vulnerable demographics.
Notably, Divyakirti’s remarks add to a chorus of criticism leveled against “Animal,” with figures like Javed Akhtar and Kangana Ranaut also expressing concerns about its success. However, Sandeep Reddy Vanga, the film’s director, staunchly defended his work against such criticism, asserting its artistic merit.
Meanwhile, Divyakirti’s latest role in “12th Fail,” portraying the educator of real-life IPS officer Manoj Kumar Sharma, underscores his commitment to projects with inspirational narratives.
Despite the controversy surrounding “Animal,” Sandeep Reddy Vanga remains undeterred, gearing up for his next project, “Animal Park,” which also features Ranbir Kapoor in the lead role.
In essence, Divyakirti’s critique of “Animal” highlights broader concerns about the responsibility of filmmakers in shaping societal norms and values through their work. As debates surrounding the film continue, it prompts reflection on the intersection of art, entertainment, and social impact in the realm of cinema.
