As the main character lies in wait in the hotel corridor, with a sword in hand, the masked men pour in in waves brandishing their own versions of slashing and disembowling weaponry to take on the lone opponent. And what follows is a 15 minute segment of crimson mayhem, with limbs getting chopped off, heads tumbling off the truncated torsos, guts getting ripped open to fall at the feet by the slashing blades, blood spurting from the orifices of the partially dangling members, and the cries, shouts, wails and howls of pain, excitement and adrenalin associated with the heightened action echo around the small enclosure. As a brief respite to the murderous rampage, when the blade waving goon comes too close to the protagonist he ends up having his eye ball pulled right off its socket, to even more peals of blood curdling screams of extreme pain. As the action subsides, following a complete vanquishing of the enemy, the protagonist is left on the floor a spare organ factory drenched in deep red, with a few bodies still trying to crawl about writhing in pain waiting for a death that just doesn't come soon enough. This scene in Kill Bill, Vol. 1 - the Crazy 88 massacre - is an over the top exercise in action choreography, which funnily doesn't create a sense of revulsion or emotional exhaustion, as Tarantino keeps the tone of the entire segment to border on riotous roaring laughter (replete with spanking of a little goon with the broad side of the Katana at the hands of the Bride). Blood galore, guts galore, gruesomeness galore, but despite all this, fun galore. That's the difference between violence and gore, that gore is the act while violence is the intent, and Tarantino clearly understands the difference between the two.
In 'Animal' when a similar scenario plays out for an equal length of time with the main character rampaging through a masked mob, the affect is not necessarily fun, as the intent of the maker (or the character) is not a show (off) of the ridiculous nature of the stunt (that includes a misnomeric minigun), and laugh at it but one of inflicting harm in a variety of mind numbing ways. What Vanga was going for is pure shock value and that applies to not just this over the top sequence but rather to the entire movie. In here, characters do not get killed with a simple stab of a knife or a silent muffle of the gun, instead they get sliced, chopped, minced and diced ending up getting reduced to lumps of meat with blunt machettes as the blood spurts in intervals on the deranged faces of the killers. In here, people do not just have disagreements or arguments. They have major meltdowns and psychotic breakdowns. Every emotion is amped up to the stratospheric level so as to seemingly justify the violence that follows. It is pure sociopathy by the way of psychopathy, or in much milder terms, anti social personality disorder. Yes, that's "Animal", Vanga can claim, pure animalistic and bestial, devoid of anything that consitutues as normal or human. It is a very clever subterfuge, the title, as all the depraved, deranged and dehumanized actions of the protagonist get a jail-free pass. Of course, he is an "Animal".
In the couple of movie that Vanga has helmed till date, expression takes the driver seat relegating the content to ride in the back, and that expression is not one of the simmering, undercurrent kind; his expression rages in intensity. When the college senior loves his junior, he do not just pine for the girl, he practically kidnaps her from the class and ends about shacking up with her. When he rejects her for some reason or the other, he practically pushes her away from his life, slapping her and abusing her kind. And same goes with living in her memories. Moderation doesn't find a place in the world of Vanga. Everything comes off quite strongly - effusive or abrasive. And 'Animal' is no different. The son doesn't take a father's lack of concern for him like a normal kid, receding into his introverted self. Instead he blows up, sometimes quite literally, everything around him to make sure his father notices him. Ignoring (anything) doesn't find a place in this universe. Slights are answered with insults, rejections are met with harangues, and of course, threats are replied with gore. So, is "Animal" a cinematic piece of expressionistic art or is it a character study of an aggreived and an abandoned soul? A firm negative on both those questions. Vanga cleverly springboards from a point of grievance and deep dives into a world that is fascist, masochist and pure nihilist. Hope doesn't find a place here with violence always lurking round the corner. The intent clearly is to push the envelope on the expression to its near breaking point as redemption arrives only in the shape of retribution.
The one movie that shares a kindred spirit with "Animal" in its manic expression is Oliver Stone's "Natural Born Killers" (and even 'A clockwork Orange'), where instincts are primal, congential and plain unapologetic. There is no why here, it just is. And similarly, there is no liking or disliking here, as "Animal", in its beast mode, just tears everything apart around it. Whether intentional or not, Vanga indeed has called his protagonist (and the movie) correctly...
checkout http://kanchib.blogspot.com for Srinivas's Blog.
