Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s Fiery Response to Javed Akhtar’s Animal Remark – Farhan’s Mirzapur Will Make You Cringe Repulsive Retaliation

Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s Scathing Reaction to Javed Akhtar’s Animal Comment Leaves a Disturbing Aftertaste

Sandeep Reddy Vanga Finds Fault in Javed Akhtar’s Critique, Challenges Him to Review Farhan Akhtar’s Mirzapur

The recent critique of Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s film “Animal” by veteran lyricist Javed Akhtar has ignited a fiery exchange in the world of cinema. Akhtar deemed such films as “dangerous,” prompting Vanga to issue a sharp retort, suggesting that Akhtar first scrutinize his son Farhan Akhtar’s production, “Mirzapur,” known for its liberal use of abusive language and gritty portrayal of violence.

In an interview with Siddharth Kannan, Sandeep Reddy Vanga expressed his dissatisfaction with Akhtar’s assessment, asserting that it was evident Akhtar had not viewed “Animal” in its entirety before passing judgment. Vanga lamented the tendency of individuals to criticize without proper examination, emphasizing the importance of understanding the context and content of a work of art before issuing condemnations.

“It is very clear that he did not watch the film,” Sandeep Reddy Vanga stated. “Now if someone is talking without watching the film, what can I say about them? Obviously, you feel bad because it is very clear that he has not seen the film… Why don’t they check their surroundings first?”

Sandeep Reddy Vanga went further to question Akhtar’s silence regarding “Mirzapur,” a popular web series produced by Farhan Akhtar known for its explicit content and graphic depiction of violence. Vanga pointed out the hypocrisy in Akhtar’s criticism, highlighting the stark contrast between his condemnation of “Animal” and his apparent disregard for the content of “Mirzapur.”

“Duniya bhar ke gaali Mirzapur ek show mai hai (the series is full of abuses),” Vanga remarked. “When the show was translated to Telugu, if you watch that, then you will feel like puking. Why is he not checking his son’s work?”

The exchange underscores the polarizing reception of “Animal,” which has been a subject of debate since its release. Starring Ranbir Kapoor, Rashmika Mandanna, Bobby Deol, Anil Kapoor, and Triptii Dimri, the film garnered mixed reviews from critics and audiences alike. Despite the controversy, “Animal” emerged as one of the highest-grossing films of 2023, amassing over ₹900 crore worldwide.

Akhtar’s criticism, however, is not without precedent. Like many others, he raised concerns about the film’s portrayal of misogyny and violence. At the Ajanta Ellora International Film Festival in Aurangabad, Akhtar expressed apprehension about the impact of films that glorify toxic masculinity and abusive behavior.

“If there’s a film in which a man asks a woman to lick his shoe or if a man says it’s okay to slap a woman… and the film is a super hit, that’s dangerous,” Akhtar remarked, alluding to a controversial scene in “Animal” where Ranbir Kapoor’s character demands a disturbing act of submission from Triptii Dimri’s character.

The criticism aimed at “Animal” echoes the broader discourse surrounding cinema’s responsibility in shaping societal norms and values. As filmmakers and audiences continue to grapple with questions of representation and accountability, the clash between artistic freedom and social responsibility remains a contentious issue at the heart of contemporary cinema.

The exchange between Sandeep Reddy Vanga and Javed Akhtar epitomizes the clash of perspectives prevalent in the Indian film industry. Sandeep Reddy Vanga defense of “Animal” reflects his commitment to artistic expression and his belief in the autonomy of filmmakers to explore provocative themes and narratives. Conversely, Akhtar’s critique underscores the imperative for filmmakers to exercise caution and responsibility in their portrayal of sensitive subjects, particularly those pertaining to gender dynamics and violence.

Sandeep Reddy Vanga challenge to Akhtar to review “Mirzapur,” a series known for its explicit content and gritty realism, raises questions about the selective nature of criticism and the nuances of artistic interpretation. By drawing attention to the apparent disparity in Akhtar’s treatment of different works of art, Vanga highlights the complexities inherent in evaluating creative expression and the subjective nature of aesthetic judgment.

At its core, the debate surrounding “Animal” and Akhtar’s critique speaks to broader issues of representation, power dynamics, and the intersection of art and social responsibility. As audiences grapple with the implications of cinematic portrayals of violence and misogyny, filmmakers are faced with the challenge of navigating the fine line between artistic freedom and ethical integrity.

For more Bollywood news. click here.