Acharya Prashant clarifies that his review is not of the film 'Animal' but of its audience, whom he describes as weak people being slapped by the director. He is not judging the film as right or wrong but explaining what it is. He points out that the film's narrative is built on a series of shocking scenes, with the father-son relationship serving merely as a superficial thread to hold them together. The core of the film, he argues, is its shock value, designed to provoke and disgust the middle-class audience by violating their sense of morality. The speaker posits that the film capitalizes on the audience's repressed desires and inferiority complex. The common person, living a life of hollow values and suppressed anger, gets impressed rather than offended when their sacred values are violated on screen. They see a 'rebel' doing things they secretly wish to do but lack the courage for. This is why they become fans of such characters and films. The film's success, he suggests, is a testament to the audience's hypocrisy and their desire to see their own dark fantasies and dirty secrets exhibited on a grand scale. Acharya Prashant explains that the director found a formula in his previous film, 'Kabir Singh,' which is to shock the weak common man, who then gets intimidated and impressed. This is akin to Stockholm Syndrome, where one becomes a fan of their exploiter. The film is a celebration of freedom from law, order, and discipline. It appeals to those who feel constrained by societal norms but have never understood the true meaning of values like non-violence, respect, or discipline. The film essentially tells the audience, 'Do you have the guts to do what I'm showing?' and the audience, feeling insulted, becomes happy. The film is a slap on the face of all weak people, and all weak people are becoming fans of the director after watching it.