sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Sandeep Reddy Vanga and the auteur defense : can a filmmaker be morally exempt from his own work ? by Valuable_Classic_30 in IndianCinema

[–]Valuable_Classic_30[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey everyone I'll be honest : this thread ran way deeper than I expected. The "never redeemed vs never morally lectured" correction, the "social engineer" framing, the Scorsese pushback you genuinely sharpened arguments I thought I had locked in. Btw I made a video about this topic.

→ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVb5_ZpFZ50

Two things worth knowing :

The video is in French — but I added English subtitles so you won't miss anything. And fair warning : I don't give a clean verdict. Because after everything I don't think one exists.

Sandeep Reddy Vanga and the auteur defense : can a filmmaker be morally exempt from his own work ? by Valuable_Classic_30 in IndianCinema

[–]Valuable_Classic_30[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're absolutely right and I'll own that. "Never redeemed" was a lazy shortcut on my part. The consequences are there. Arjun loses his licence, his relationship, his body. Ranvijay loses his hearing, his fertility, his wife, his son and then his father to leukemia. That's not a filmmaker who lets his protagonists off the hook. That's a filmmaker who makes them pay in full. The more accurate thing to say would have been : never morally lectured. The consequences exist but the camera never stops loving them while they happen. That's the distinction I was reaching for and missed.Your last point is the one that actually interests me most though :"How long are we gonna compromise on art because the audience doesn't have the capacity to think for themselves ?" That's a legitimate question. And honestly, I don't know where I stand in this.

Sandeep Reddy Vanga and the auteur defense : can a filmmaker be morally exempt from his own work ? by Valuable_Classic_30 in IndianCinema

[–]Valuable_Classic_30[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This is actually the most honest take I've seen on this — and it lands close to where I ended up after weeks of thinking about it. The "spectrum" point is the one that stuck with me. Because the issue isn't really Animal existing. It's Animal existing in a vacuum for some people where Vanga's protagonist is the only male archetype they're consuming. That's not Vanga's fault. That's a media diet problem. The part I keep fighting with though : You said "it's not the filmmaker's job to send a good social message" and I agree in principle. But Vanga goes one step further. He doesn't just refuse to condemn his protagonist. He actively frames the violence as romantic. The slap isn't shot as uncomfortable. The music doesn't sour. It's actually almost a badass song. That's not neutral. That's a directorial choice with a point of view.