By Haley Vasu

Abstract

Bollywood has evolved, and so has its idea of masculinity. It changed from the ‘angry young man’ in the 70s to the “Thappad marke bhi de sakte hai” Chulbul Pandey in the early 2000s. Cut to 2023, a new idea of being a ‘man’ is developed and glorified. It is the culmination of all these years of hypermasculine characters that have taught the audience what it takes to be a ‘man’, except now, it is out of control.

The Angry, Young Man Era

Karen Gabriel’s book “Melodrama and the Nation- Sexual Economies of Bombay Cinema 1970-2000” states the 70s was rampant with political unrest, unemployment and poverty. There was systematic injustice, and the people, especially the youth, were angry. It was this anger that the films of the 70s tapped into, with heroes fighting the villain, reinforcing law and order in the country, standing up for the unheard, and the like. His was thus  ‘righteous anger’. It was a stark shift from the charming, romantic heroes dancing around the trees with their love interests and resonated deeply with people that the trope became an instant hit. People glorified such characters who fought against the unjust and redefined what a ‘man’ ought to look like, someone whose masculinity and machismo were easy to emulate. However, this was also when problematic stereotypes started getting space on the big screen, and instead of showing how wrong they were, they got glorified. From the hero ‘saving’ his heroine from the luscious tares and grasp of the villain to the heroine, constantly pursued till she gives in, several aggressive methods were chosen by the makers and applauded by the audience as to what constitutes ‘marking.

Men started to differentiate themselves through two means– one, by differentiating themselves by depicting their masculinity through violence and by pushing women back to traditional gender roles. Toxic masculinity is a combination of both of them. These films did not just introduce to the audience what a ‘mard’ is by showing them chiselled, angry men fighting off villains and saving the heroines, and therefore establishing their masculinity (and gender role). They also laid out what it means to be a woman, differentiating between them and women, by establishing now-famous dialogues like ‘Mard ko dard nahi hota’. 

But why is all this important?

An American professor, George Gerbner, came up with ‘cultivation theory’ which postulates that the more television people watch, the more they are likely to perceive that distorted and partial reality as the truth, as the world they “really” live in. Gender is one of the initial identities a kid learns about. It plays a role in socialisation as it aids an individual’s understanding of what it means to be a man or a woman. There has been research showing how the ubiquity of media has been playing a fundamental role in this socialisation process of a human, with distorted representations of gender producing “sociocultural pressures to conform to gender roles and body types”. Gauntlett (2008)  posits that one takes multiple representations, as seen in media, to create one’s own identity- this might be a conscious or a subconscious decision, but we internalise those representations nonetheless.

Considering all these, imagine the impact on a young boy when he hears lines like “mard ko dard nahi hota” or “don’t cry like a girl”. He would internalise this in his primary socialisation process and gradually start believing it. 

So, where are we now?

Multiple decades later, we’re still not so far from the 70s idea of a ‘man’ as we would like to believe. Probably, it’s worse. Imagine the male character slapping his love interest, asking her to lick his shoe, or committing marital rape. In an interview about his film ‘Animal’,  Ranbir Kapoor said that it is imperative to show something is wrong in society to make them realise it. Movies are a way to make people realise it and start a conversation. However, couldn’t the same message be delivered in a different packaging is my question. Such movies ought to make it easier to introspect rather than encourage. As an article aptly points out, a nuanced approach is needed when dealing with ‘alpha males’ and understanding that their struggles and insecurities are ‘pivotal in addressing their behaviour constructively’ without glorifying toxicity or endorsing it, which is what directors like Sandeep Reddy Vanga ought to learn.  Amir Khan, in a now-viral interview from the 90s, said that directors who aren’t creative resort to violence and sex to make their movies work, for they are easy emotions to incite from people. Directors today have realised this formula, especially after the success of films like Kabir Singh, and are following it. But the question is, how responsible of an artistic choice is it? 

How do people view movies?

Art is and has always been a medium of self-expression for the artist. It reflects the society around it (much like Ranbir Kapoor would like to believe). Art also reflects its audience- a concept lost on all artists. As this piece points out, “Art, sadly, is no longer about self-expression. It has been moulded into something for entertainment and is otherwise unnecessary.”  Manoj Bajpayee stated that every film has a ‘director’s gaze’ and said, ‘Animal’ is ‘rather regressive’. It is then something to ponder upon if people consider this thought before they step into the theatre. They are not likely to see the 200-minute-long video from the director’s perspective but rather as a similar, parallel world to theirs. The audience would not see it as a person’s opinion but rather as an alternative reality, where once they are in those seats, it’s almost like a different world. But more often than not, the line between the fictional (world) and reality gets indiscernible, where people still carry with them what they just saw in the movie theatre as they walk outside. Movies do have an impact. The “impact would be big enough” to adopt that behaviour in life, despite it being problematic, and big enough to choose ignorance.

Where are we headed as a society?

Movies like Animal and Kabir Singh have a fan base because people think of them as ‘raw’, ‘authentic’ and ‘relatable’. If the youth thinks slapping a woman is ‘raw’ and ‘authentic’, we should reflect upon the society we are living in and the people we are turning into. Why I call the outrage that ensued after ‘Animal’ the ‘culmination of years of internalisation of the hypermasculine’ is precisely for this reason. People, especially men, have internalised that they are only supposed to express anger. Anything else, and they are not ‘man enough’ or are ‘effeminate’. When people have internalised and believe in this stereotype, which has ironically been influenced partially by movies too, abuse in a relationship would then also feel like an ‘authentic display of affection’, like love in its ‘raw form’. What other reaction would one expect from a generation that has either grown up with Bachan’s angry young man, or  Govinda and Salman’s movies that made a sexist joke, normalised cheating, or Salman’s “Thappad marke bhi de sakte hai” and other such male leads with misplaced ideas of masculinity? When such masculinity intensifies 10x in ‘Animal’, it ought to be loved by an audience that has grown up on subtler though very prevalent ideas of the hypermasculine and its promulgation that only increases with time. ‘Animal’ is simply the result of a ticking time bomb set off decades ago.

Author’s Bio

Haley Vasu is a second-year law student at O.P. Jindal Global University. She loves to read fiction and have conversations over a good cup of coffee.

Image Source: https://www.purposestudios.in/post/portrayal-of-masculinity-in-hindi-cinema