Sandeep Reddy Vanga cannot take criticism. Like a spoiled child in the middle of a tantrum, he lashes out at anyone who faults his work, and his latest target is Javed Akhtar.
The director, known for films that celebrate toxic masculinity, called Akhtar’s art ‘a big false’ on X (formerly Twitter) after the lyricist and screenwriter described his film Animal as misogynistic and intended for “low-IQ alpha males”. In English that is barely comprehensible, the post from Animal’s official handle raged and ranted at Akhtar, a Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan awardee.
We could have all done without this Vanga hot take. He is a misogynistic manchild who has never learned the art of courtesy or humility. Even his fans can’t digest his arrogance.
At the 9th Ajanta-Ellora International Film Festival in Aurangabad, Akhtar called Animal’s box office triumph ‘dangerous.’
“If there’s a film in which a man asks a woman to lick his shoe if a man says it’s okay to slap a woman, and the film is a super hit, that’s dangerous,” he warned, alluding to the controversial scene involving Ranbir Kapoor and Tripti Dimri’s characters. Vanga’s previous films, Kabir Singh (2019) and Arjun Reddy (2017), may have prompted Akhtar’s comment on scenes where women are slapped.
Also read: KBC brought together my whole family. It folds up the innocence of my childhood
Vanga needs to rethink his idea of love
That’s all it took for Vanga to teach Akhtar his ‘truth’ about love and feminism. “Let love be free from the politics of gender. Let’s just call them lovers. LOVER cheated and lied. LOVER said lick my shoe. Period.”
This love pathshala for Akhtar belongs in the animal kingdom.
Vanga’s films reek of misogyny and glorify the toxic behaviour of poorly raised men whom he glamourises as the ‘alpha male’. And with tweets such as these, Vanga desperately wants to project himself as that alpha male. While it’s a loser’s stance in and of itself, he doesn’t realise that he also exposes himself as a crybaby who cannot tolerate any criticism.
The internet can’t take it anymore. Neither can I. Nobody is to blame here except Vanga who is on a high horse galloping in a parallel universe.
Many commentators are stating the obvious – Vanga needs help. Even his fans are urging him to reconsider his statements against Akhtar.
Vanga, through his movies, projects ideas of love that are nothing short of nightmares for any sane human being, irrespective of their gender identities. The same man who justifies gender-based violence as a form of love is now advocating for it to be “free from the politics of gender”. Irony died a hundred deaths here.
The fact that his cinematic horrors are massive hits calls for a separate discussion. It is quite telling of the times we are living in. Vanga is on a personal mission to turn back the clock with his regressive views.
Akhtar doesn’t need to prove anything. His legacy speaks for itself. Of the 24 films he wrote with Salim Khan, 20 were hits, the most popular ones being Zanjeer (1973), Sholay (1975) and Deewar (19754). Perhaps Vanga can learn a lesson or two from him.
Akhtar isn’t wrong when he puts the onus on the audience that accepts the kind of movies Vanga makes. His comment on Vanga’s film should be a wake-up call for those who endorse such cinema. When Akhtar says, “The value and moralities shown in our films lie in your hands,” you have to hand it to him for telling the truth. He’s stating the obvious, and if anything, it should be a moment of reckoning.
Akhtar’s comment serves as the antidote to an otherwise apparent affliction of bad cinema. Amen to more people calling it out. The world could do with more Akhtars and fewer Vangas because cinema mirrors society. It is imperative to remember that nothing is beyond criticism. If anything, Vanga’s response to Akhtar only proves the latter’s assertions.
For now, Vanga could do everyone a favour and begin at the basics–do a crash course on humility after which he could perhaps invest in a Mubi subscription. A cheap and effective way to learn about good cinema. I’d have suggested a course on feminism but I have serious doubts about his capacity to take it. It might be counterintuitive and lead to another misogynistic movie. That’s a risk we can all do without.
Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)