Intention Vs Reality: Understanding The Complicated Success Of ‘Baby’

Films are undoubtedly a reflection of society and our times. But rarely does a society’s reaction to a film become a tool to evaluate and understand the moral perspective of its people. Baby is that rare film. Ever since its release on July 14, Baby has been subject to vehement debates, and quite rightfully so. 

Terms like misogynistic, toxic, sexist, and patriarchal have been used to describe the film’s vantage point. Sai Rajesh’s Baby is essentially the story of Vaishnavi (Vaishnavi Chaitanya), a young engineering student hailing from a modest economic background. When Vaishnavi joins college, she finds herself torn between her lover Anand (Anand Deverakonda), an auto driver, and Viraj (Viraj Ashwin), the rich hunk who is bent on wooing her. Anand’s toxicity and Viraj’s obsession make Vaishnavi’s life miserable as she finds herself in a twisted, chaotic situation that tests her love, will and morality. But this tells one side of the story. The other side: the film just amassed Rs 66.6 crore in 10 days, emerging as one of the biggest surprises this year. 

Theatres are running to packed houses across the Telugu states, with the film’s target audience — the youth — embracing it with open arms. On the flip side, on the day of its release, objectionable videos of men screaming expletives at the film’s female lead were circulated online, including a video of a youngster slapping Vaishnavi’s poster with his slipper. These distasteful reactions, while speaking volumes about our society, also make Baby a complicated specimen to understand how we, as a society, process concepts like sexism and patriarchy. 

Intentions vs filmmaking

Filmmaker Sai Rajesh recalls being disturbed by the film’s vile reactions in a recent interview with Film Companion. “When I watched the film at Prasad’s, I was shocked to see people whistling and screaming for Anand’s abuses (he humiliates Vaishnavi with a slur word for adapting a modern lifestyle). I just couldn’t digest it. If a film is appreciated by the audience, any filmmaker would be elated, but I felt sad. On the other hand, when Vaishnavi gives it back to Anand, there was pin-drop silence. I was expecting whistles for her dialogues. It was shocking,” the filmmaker said.

In that case, why are people unable to see Vaishnavi’s perspective? Why aren’t people clapping when she calls out Anand’s toxicity and misogyny? Film critic Sankeerthana Varma points out that Vaishnavi’s side could’ve been etched out better in the film. “Audiences are just absorbing what they want and omitting the rest. Her five-minute monologue was impactful; it wasn’t passive. At that point, the filmmaking was fine.” Things become murky when she kisses Viraj as an act of revenge, she adds.

The scene follows right after Anand insults Vaishnavi for expressing her desire to go to the pub. Vaishnavi kisses Viraj in anger, to make a statement. “This angle wasn’t established well, because right before kissing Viraj, she tells Anand that she loves him. It should have been clearer. We can understand her state of mind only when we see it from her perspective. If we see the film from Anand’s perspective, there’s no clarity about her headspace. And the viewers aren’t trying to understand her perspective, right? The viewer should have that intention. Even if we have a negative perception of her, the filmmaking should be more pronounced for us to understand her actions,” Sankeerthana says.

Sankeerthana explains the Vaishnavi problem in the film’s writing with yet another scene. “After Viraj gifts Vaishnavi a fancy iPhone, she meets Anand and mocks the phone Anand had once gifted her as a ‘dabba phone’, hurting him unknowingly. Why would she do that?” 

But couldn’t one consider this taunt as an indication of the intimacy they share? Not really, Sankeerthana says. “Vaishnavi is aware of Anand’s money problems and the fact that he borrowed money just to give her a phone. I mean, even among us, it’s not fine to diss a gift from a loved one, right? A person who is shown to be so scared of her partner’s vexation (she is so afraid of Anand that she doesn’t seek his support when Viraj blackmails her with an intimate video in the second half), wouldn’t pass such remarks about a gift that is so dear to him. The writing felt inconsistent.”

Perspective too, is a major problem with the storytelling, Sankeerthana feels. “The film opens with Anand being a drunkard, and ends with him heartbroken and driving his auto with Vaishnavi’s childhood photo in it. Just because Vaishnavi is wearing good clothes in the end and is getting married, it doesn’t mean she is any less hurt than Anand, who seems unkempt and broken outwardly. If we don’t think consciously, we might only remember Anand's last shot while walking out of the film. The first shot and last shot of the film are quite important and I cannot figure out what the filmmaker wanted to say with that final shot,” Sankeerthana says. 

Pointing to a major plot point that would have defined the narrative had it been used well, she adds, “Likewise, Anand’s friend (played by Harsha Chemudu) who records a video of Vaishnavi repenting her decision to sleep with Viraj, never shows him the video. Instead, he simply reveals that Vaishnavi cheated on him and shows the video of her kissing Viraj. Had Anand seen Vaishnavi’s confession, he might have realised that she is sad and loves him.”

Why a female gaze would’ve made a difference

Rajesh maintains that he tried to remain neutral while telling the story of his three flawed characters. “I didn’t want to take the side of men or women,” he says, acknowledging that the audience has taken the side of Anand, who chooses to remain heartbroken and refuses to move on even after Vaishnavi cheats on him. “If you take Anand’s side, the film looks completely different,” the filmmaker says. 

Naturally, a question arises here. If ideas in the film are being misconstrued, whose mistake is it? The audience or the filmmaker? It goes both ways, says Sangeetha Devi, film critic of The Hindu. “Distasteful dialogues generalising women are unfortunately always met with cheers. One’s own toxicity comes out with such lines.”

Sangeetha feels that a script like Baby needed more vetting, especially from a female perspective. “Filmmakers like Mani Ratnam, Sekar Kammula, Vivek Athreya, Sailesh Kolanu, and Sashi Kiran Tikka run their scripts through their team and family members to understand their perception. I remember Sudha Kongara once told me that there isn’t a thing you cannot tell Mani Ratnam. “If you feel something, you can tell him (your views),” she said. But Sai Rajesh couldn’t do this because the script was written on sets and it was a film quite close to him. There’s a shock value every 15 minutes in the second half and it feels disjointed. They couldn't properly translate the thoughts they wanted to convey.”

Much of Vaishnavi’s personal struggle was lost in translation, she adds. “The film’s editor Viplav told me they tried to register Vaishnavi’s dilemma, at every stage. But how much of it did we understand?” asks Sangeetha, admitting that even her standpoint was influenced by his filmmaking. “To be frank, when I was watching the film, for a few seconds, my entire sympathy went to Anand. And then I wondered what was going on. I have heard of and seen such toxic behaviour among men in real life. But that doesn’t mean that he can wallow in pity while the girl alone is painted black. She is also grey, and she too can be immature like Anand, right? If they didn’t intend to show her in a bad light and present Anand as a victim, they should have held discussions about underlining it in the screenplay and editing. I think that’s where they missed it.”

Sangeetha refers to the women written by veteran filmmaker K Balachander to emphasise the importance of sensitive writing. “Sai Rajesh cited films like Arangetram (A 1973 Tamil film in which a young woman, hailing from a conservative but poor household, takes up prostitution to support them), Aval Oru Thodar Kathai (1974) and Aval Appadithaan (1978), all of which feature women who might not always do the right thing, as his inspiration. They are victims of their own actions and circumstances,” Sangeetha says, adding that Baby too has a moment like this, but doesn’t quite realise its depth. “When Viraj blackmails Vaishnavi, to an extent, this angle comes through. You know that she’s caught in a fix. Vaishnavi, who hails from a slum, gets to be a different version of herself when she enters college. A part of her wouldn’t want to let go of all the attention coming her way. So, she is torn between all that and gets trapped eventually. Where the film falters is the fact that it starts with Anand, and Vijay Bulganin’s score further makes us feel sad for him.”

Does Baby Expose Society?

YouTuber Anil of Ragadi Productions thinks Baby’s reactions stem from the deep-rooted patriarchy in our society. “A majority of Indian women still don’t have rights. So when a film like Baby comes out, serving the male ego, the vitriolic toxicity within us comes out,” Anil says. He adds that the impact of the film has been such that he even heard some people express concerns about sending their daughters to cities for education. “A patriarchal society is never comfortable with women expressing or exploring their sexuality. That’s one of the reasons why the film is making so much noise. We are an extremely sexist society and there’s no denying that.”

What does the success of the film tell us about our society? “It says that it’s unfair to women,” Sankeerthana says, who adds that young men often like to see their pain being glorified on screen. “People are comparing Baby to films like RX 100, which didn’t even present any female point of view. The woman in RX 100 is treated like an insect towards the end. Baby doesn’t do that at all. Even if its mistakes are apparent, you can understand its intentions in the back of your mind. But good intentions are not always enough. He should be careful and responsible going forward, especially while making such a sensitive film.”

Anil adds that the success of Baby will reflect in the kind of films that will be made in the near future. “Baby made money and that’s the takeaway for the industry. So, more films of this nature will be made. Baby has definitely created a pattern, and we are going to see more regressive ideas and anti-feminism narratives represented on screen. I don’t know how effective they will be, but an attempt to capitalise this sentiment will be made.”