Discussions about the portrayal of women in Indian cinema are not new. There was previously a formula where villains treated women inappropriately, and the hero would save them. However, this template limited women to the role of someone who needed saving by a male protagonist, rather than an independent character. Over time, cinema has changed, leading to claims of greater progressiveness regarding women. Nevertheless, often beneath this progressive packaging lies an old patriarchal view. The difference is merely that it is now presented under the banners of glamour, sexual liberation, and the alpha male.
This raises the question: does giving female characters freedom on screen simply mean showing them in a sexually bold manner? Is arbitrary male behavior towards women acceptable just because he is labeled toxic, bold, or an alpha? When cinema presents such behavior not as a challenge, but as a symbol of style, attractiveness, and masculinity, it unconsciously reinforces the idea that a woman's presence serves the story, the desires, and the entertainment of the man.
The film 'Toxic,' directed by Gittu Mohandas, is an interesting and troubling example of this contradiction. Since the direction belongs to a woman, it is natural to expect that female characters will be presented not merely as objects of glamour or plot devices, but as individuals with their own desires and personalities. However, after watching, the main question arises: does 'Toxic' truly give women the freedom it promised in its promotion and initial debates?
During the trailer release, bold scenes were discussed, to which the argument of women's choice and consent was put forward. Undeniably, a woman's decision regarding her body and sexuality is her right, and she cannot be judged solely for being bold. But the issue of representation in cinema is not limited only to clothing or explicit scenes. The main question is how the camera views the woman, what her role in the story is, and whether she is a decision-maker or merely a means to advance the path of the main male character.
This is where the biggest problem of 'Toxic' manifests. The presence of many female characters is determined not by their personalities, but by their bodies, relationships, and interaction with the male character. That is, the freedom being talked about seems more like the freedom of male desire in many places than the freedom of the woman herself. The female protagonists are present; they are bold, sexually open, but their story is limited. This paradox makes the film even more interesting in the discussion of women's empowerment, but simultaneously a more awkward example.
Another weakness of the film is its disjointed script. 'Toxic' is not just a story about a bad person. Toxicity refers to behavior and relationships that constantly harm another person. However, in the film, instead of recognizing or criticizing this mentality, it is transformed into style and attractiveness. When the character Kiara Advani calls her lover's behavior toxic, the character Yash simultaneously uses derogatory words like Bitch towards her. The problem is not only in the use of such language but also in how the film frames this poisonous behavior. When insults, the assertion of rights, and unhealthy relationships receive romantic or sexual packaging, the viewer is faced with the question: is the film criticizing this or selling it?
A similar problem is observed in films about infidelity and premarital relationships. The existence of such relationships in the film itself is not an error. The task of cinema is not only to show ideal relationships. But when the emotional and moral consequences of such actions are almost ignored, and everything is reduced to the lifestyle and attractiveness of the male character, the narrative perspective is called into question. The same feeling is experienced in the scenes with Nayantara and Kiara Advani: the complexity of the female characters has taken a backseat, yielding to their relationships and connection with the male hero.
Watching the film becomes even more interesting in light of Yash's statements during promotion about women's desires, equality, and freedom. Because the male character shown on screen often behaves in direct opposition to these principles of equality. Interactions with girls, smoking, alcohol, sex, and subsequent violence constitute most of the hero's world. The problem is not why these things are shown in films. The question is where in this world there is a life of the female characters themselves?
When examining the character construction, despite the presence of five actresses, there is no sufficient diversity among the female characters. The character of Kiara Advani is reduced to her relationship with the main male character and subsequent pregnancy. The characters of Huma Kurashi and Tara Sutaria are also defined more by their connections to the male character than by their independent personalities.