Of Sensibilities and Sensitivities

By now, the regular readers of my posts are well familiar with my First Day Third Show moniker. It was after a long time … actually quite a few years now … that I lived up to it when I went to watch Animal. I took the lead in getting my erstwhile FDTS gang to watch it together as, on watching the trailer, I felt that it was worth the effort. I am a big fan of action movies that involve a lot of blood and gore, guns, swords, man-to-man combats, etc. And when it is sprinkled with a lot of drama, father-son conflict, excellent performers like Ranbir Kapoor and Anil Kapoor … then you have me sold. The trailer had all of it, and more. Little did I know then …

Turned out that the 3 minute trailer would have sufficed for me to get me my fix. There are several ways in which 3 hrs and 21 mins can be spent – constructively, un-constructively, or even destructively (because even in destroying something one is either laying the foundation of constructing something or just purging the Earth of some unwanted stuff). Any of these ways is wayyy better than spending that much amount of time watching Animal. But today’s post is not a review of the movie - that is in the Keep Watching section of this post.

Before I come to the subject matter at hand, let me also qualify that I was also the only one among the three of us who had gone for Animal who hadn’t watched its director’s earlier outings. It is important that I qualify this as apparently it is this kind of content that is the signature of the director that has made blockbusters out of Arjun Reddy / Kabir Singh. In fact, from what I have heard Rannvijay Balbir Singh (Ranbir Kapoor’s character in Animal) makes Kabir Singh look cute. Now on to the topic of this post …

Watching Animal made me aware of how much my sensibilities had evolved on several fronts. As I am pretty much sure all of you would also feel the same. It’s a different thing that my personal bar was much low (you could probably call it subterranean) considering the crap that I used to watch in my younger days. My fervent plea to you, dear reader, is not to unsubscribe from my virtual avatar aka The Introspective Introvert or, worse still, abandon me in real life when I tell you that I used to revel in watching the 80s battery of movies comprising an assembly line cast of Jeetendra + Sridevi / Jaya Prada + Kader Khan + Shakti Kapoor + Asrani in movies like Himmatwala, Justice Chaudhury, Mawaali, Tohfa, Masterji, etc etc. Which carried right into the 90s with the likes of Dalal, Khalnayak, Krantiveer, Krishna, Raja Babu, Lal Badshah, Gharwali Baharwali, Judwaa, Judaai and a lot of Govinda + every heroine who was huge in the 90s + Kader Khan + Shakti Kapoor movies that were unleashed on us by David Dhawan. So while you judge me on my ‘eclectic’ taste in movies, the point that I am trying to make here is that as a viewer I evolved. And so did many of us.

One of the reasons for this evolution is also the fact that, thanks to the satellite TV and the Internet boom, we were exposed to quality entertainment far more in the new millennium than we had been before. Our sensibilities of what’s good, what’s bad, what’s ugly, what’s crass, what’s crude, what’s sick, what’s sick humour, what’s good writing, what’s bad writing, what’s progressive, what’s regressive, what’s misogynistic, what’s slick, what’s slime, and several such other factors evolved. No longer were movie titles like ‘Aurat Pair Ki Juti Nahi Hain’ to be seen or heard … because collectively as an audience we evolved to appreciate the true significance of the superior sex and no longer had to be reminded of that reality by movie titles. The evolution in the overall quality of writing too was evident in the fact that whatever crassness was left was largely relegated to having an item number in a movie. And that too turned out to be a passing phase. The quality of the dance moves, especially in elaborate dance sequence songs, improved thanks to the likes of Shiamak Davar and his proteges who all but did away with the matkas and the jhatkas wearing revealing chaniya-cholis which were the trademark of the dance masters like Saroj Khan. Cracking crude jokes on body parts, body size, bodily functions, colour, sex, sexual preferences, transgenders, etc were finally seen as regressive and got rejected by the audiences. Stereotypical representation of some of these identities disappeared. No longer did a trans character have to wear make-up, or have an excessive gait or excessive mannerisms. No longer was it mandatory to showcase a strong woman protagonist in male attire. Films like Wake Up Sid, Cheeni Kum, My Brother Nikhil, Chak De India, Baby, Rang De Basanti generally started getting progressive themes that chipped away at societal prejudices while maintaining a cultural balance.

I am using the example of movies to illustrate my point simply because it is often said that movies are a mirror of the society, and vice versa. One could say that thanks to being one of the largest markets for almost everything of cultural, economic and business significance – entertainment included – as a nation we were forced to become a responsible global citizen. We were no longer an isolated entity. Optic fibres transmitted even the smallest of incidences on a global scale through the viral nature of social media. Our collective evolution in the short span of a couple of decades is best explained by Nancy Tuana in her excellent essay in The Philospher. She says,

“Sensibilities are not individual but compose social formations and ways of living. They give rise not just to individual predispositions and habits, but to cultural attunements, institutional inclinations, social movements, shared mores. Sensibilities are already formed and actively in place when we begin to think, recognize, evaluate.”

Our sensibilities started being governed by how we would be seen, heard, and perceived by a global audience. Scores left our shores to venture overseas for better education and a better quality life. These migratory movements made us more aware. And more accepting. Social and societal norms were changing. Asserting one’s individuality and choices was a right that started being exercised. So it was no longer sacrilegious to be in a live-in relationship. Sexual preferences started getting openly discussed. And generally more openly accepted. If you think that some of these points are more elitist in nature, I invite you to visit a local park near where I stay, on a Sunday evening. For more than two decades it is a place where same sex couples meet – and these are not from the crème-de-la-crème section of society where such things are acceptable, and more accepted. But not once has there been any disturbance or protests of any kind from an otherwise largely conservative neighbourhood. Just goes to show how open and accepting we have become as a society.

The flip side to this evolved and heightened sensibility of people, however, is the increasingly belligerent sensitivity that one finds in today’s society. And the reason for that, as Nancy Tuana puts it, is that “Sensibilities give rise to predispositions, and those predispositions concern what we value as much as what we can make sense of; they give rise to our affect as well as to our intellect. Sensibilities are the liminal happenings in-between feeling and knowing, sensing and thinking, affect and cognition. Sensibilities incorporate practices and influences from diversified histories, lineages, and interests … and as our awareness arises from them, such attunements are difficult and often incomplete.”

The last line in the above paragraph is of much significance.

Only awareness of certain shifts in social mores or acceptable norms is not enough. Our psychological attunement to the new paradigms should also be complete. It is half measures or Half Knowledge, as one of my earlier campaigns for a leading business daily propagated, that is the bane of our times.

This problem is exacerbated when the primary source of information happens to be virtual universities in the form of WhatsApp, Insta and TikTok. In large parts these are founts of vitriolic half knowledge that polarises the have-me-nots and/or the conservative minded. In the quest to evolve their sensibilities, there are large chunks of society that fall victim to counterforces that often have a regressive influence. An underlying fear of not having enough ability (or capability) to comprehend a seemingly evolved sensibility leads to ‘offence is the best defence’ mechanism to come to the fore.

It is also true that the half-knowledge neo-converts to a sensibility often see anyone who doesn’t comply to their perspective or way or thinking as being inferior or regressive. That is where the belligerent sensitivity comes into play. There is no place for dialogue. There is only one way, and that is ‘my’ way. And if that way is not followed then it is an offence. Armed with smartphones and the luxury of 140 characters, 15 second videos and the added feature of re-posting someone else’s content thereby directly or indirectly endorsing it, the execution is swift and often brutal. Brutal because there are hordes of them out there who are just waiting to piggyback on someone else’s (warped) sensibilities that have morphed into sensitivities.

This has led to a perennial us v/s them situation. Logic and reason no longer matter. The sensitive at least have an excuse for their belligerence. But what about the sensible? How do they justify their becoming sensitive to any kind of thinking alternative to their evolved sensibility? How can they have a scenario where the very reason for them having evolved completely deserts them? This kind of right-wing thinking has percolated across the length and breadth and depth of society.

It seems that most people in today's world are offended by something or the other, whether it be something political, a religious belief, some random movie or even a schoolbook. Extreme sensitivity has led to the cancel culture that is prevalent today. Nowadays it appears that if anyone goes against a popular opinion, they are the enemy. No matter one's belief, there will always be someone there to counter their stance, thus putting them in the position of being insulted for believing their own ideas.

This is what has resulted in a global society of contradictions. While contradictions are necessary to have a healthy give and take of opinions and points of views, the current contradictions are less philosophical, or conceptual, by nature. They are about the here and now. There are about perceived rights and wrongs. They are about perceptions of good v/s evil.

The net effect of evolved sensibilities and heightened sensitivities is that everything has become confusing all around. If one takes pride in one’s sensibilities then they feel it is their moral right to impose those sensibilities on to others, thereby descending into sensitivity if that imposition is opposed. And if someone takes pride in their sensitivities, then it is popularly opined that they are devoid of any sensibilities to be able to differentiate between right and wrong.

Coming back to where this post started – it is precisely this kind of confusion that creators of films like Animal thrive on. They are able to send out mixed signals, often resulting in thumping box office success, where simple objectivity is sacrificed at the altar of populist tropes. So if the film maker was accused of toxic masculinity in his earlier venture, he has ‘corrected’ it by depicting a few scenes where the wife slaps the husband. So numb have our sensibilities and sensitivities become that we don’t see it as an unhealthy relationship in the first place where one partner (irrespective of their gender) has to slap another to make their point. Or we fail to see it as infidelity when the husband confesses to having indulged in it for the greater cause of extracting the truth out of the mistress. Or we don’t see any wrong when the brother barges into a classroom firing away an automatic rifle only to scare away those scoundrels who dared to rag his sister.

To once again quote Nancy Tuana, “It is at the site of sensibilities that we must linger if we desire to transform destructive ways of living. Whether our attention is focused on systemic oppression of some groups of people, or the destruction of ecosystems, or the ways in which the two are co-constituted, what is needed is a shift in sensibilities. A shift not just in conceptualization, but in being affected”.

Scale this up and we see this state of heightened sensibilities and sensitivities being exploited on the political front, with the unbridled global rise of right wing politics running roughshod not just over leftist, but even centrist, thought processes. The likes of Animal are but just mirrors to our lack, and loss, of objectivity. Or is it the other way round?

Be braver. Be kinder.

---

A wafer thin plot (son loves father obsessively, father has no time, son becomes wayward, son can go to any extent to avenge attack on father, father repents in the end) is stretched to 3:20 hrs. Meanders a lot, unsurprisingly. Stuffed with action that touches new levels of blood, gore and violence (slurrrp for those who love such stuff). Replete with toxic masculinity. Ranbir Kapoor is excellent and fills up the screen. Anil Kapoor is bechara. Rashmika is all gritted teeth. Everyone else is incidental or ther’re only to be killed. The movie jumps from one thing to another abruptly. Just like this review. The rating is only for the action sequences.