Left-liberals' narrative of 'Kantara' is both biased and baseless

Leftists, with their biased approach, conveniently remember scenes that suit their narrative and dub 'Kantara' as a regressive film

New Delhi, Dec 06: Rishab Shetty's movie 'Kantara' has won the hearts of cine-goers across the country and have garnered praises and accolades from audience all around. The movie has been hailed for its story backed by the fantastic performance of the lead stars that has led to wide-spread acceptance across the languages. While the multilingual film has garnered appreciation, left-liberals have called the movie 'regressive' and are busy doing with what they are best at -- nitpicking the content and weaving a baseless narrative around it.

Leftists have targeted 'Kantara' as a misogynistic and regressive film. A few days ago, Anand Gandhi, Tumbbad's creative director, made critical comments about Shetty-starrer and said that it was celebration of toxic masculinity. "Kantara is nothing like Tumbbad. My idea behind Tumbbad was to use the horror as an allegory of toxic masculinity and parochialism. Kantara is a celebration of these," he tweeted.

Is 'Kantara' really regressive?
There were some who raised objection to the scene where the hero pushes the heroine away when she is trying to calm him down. Ironically, while the naysayers saw how Shiva lost his cool, they forgot to mention or remember the very next shot that showed his mother's disapproval. She said, "How dare you beat up a girl? This was the last thing I expected from you." Her words clearly meant that the protagonist had displayed such behaviour for the first time and even she as his mother would not accept such an attitude from him towards women.

Leela was progressive:
The villagers were not educated but Leela was literate. She studied hard and managed to get a government job though through the influence of the local landlord. Her father did not raise objection to his daughter's wish to study and work which was a clear sign of progress. That too given the fact that the story was set in the 80s and 90s. Despite being tribals, he let her daughter follow her dreams.

Moreover, Leela was a strong woman. On the first day of her duty, she had to take on her own people and face humiliation from her superior for getting job through recommendation. Such harassment continued. Yet she did not sulk and quit the job even as her tribe was against her decision to continue with the job. At one stage, she makes Shiva realise the tough situation she was in - to stand by her villagers and be with the forest department.

An atheist, but not a villain
Another key character in the movie was Muralidhar, a Deputy Range Forest Officer played by Kishore. He was an atheist, who had problems with the villagers' way of 'Daivaradhane'. Usually such characters are stereotyped as villains, but in this case it was different. Although he had issues with the villagers, he stood by them when they needed them the most.

He admits in the pre-climax scene that if he lends ear he might hear the "demigod speak". He acknowledges that their beliefs may differ but admits that they "are part of the same existence." The concept clearly highlighted the true identity of our dharma where we can be Hindu, yet be an atheist.

The character of the Muslims taking part in the 'Daivaradhae' and losing lives for the villagers cause clearly has a message in itself for the society, which, unfortunately, has been ignored by the so-called progressive thinkers.

The criticism against Shiva's creepy behaviour is rubbish because they (hero and heroine) have been attracted to each other since childhood. The fact that what they shared was with mutual consent and that he did not cross any lines of decency with other women and only with his lover and with her consent clearly holds mirror to his character.

Also, the comments about the movie glorifying toxic masculinity sounds funny as the content should be consumed as a whole. The story was set in 90s and in a rural milieu. How do we expect the characters to behave like men of new millennium? Instead of nitpicking, critics should understand the progressive value that the movie projects in total but for such an unbiased and honest review, they would first need to watch the movie without an opinion and watch it in whole before they try to shred it to pieces.