Readers Write In #636: Leo vs A History of Violence: Picture Yourself

By VS Shyam

An official adaptation of the History of Violence (HoV). That’s what is being circulated across. Even the ‘picture yourself’ serial killer story that the protagonist says in the trailer is lifted straight up from the introduction of History of Violence comic. On a surface story level, Leo did remain true to its predecessor. A man with a violent past sees his family life as the last chance to redeem himself and therefore goes to extreme lengths to prevent his past from resurfacing. But once we scratch the superficies, does it mirror the motives of HoV? Does it become controversial? Or does the director have other plans?

More than a “Baasha” story, I see HoV as a psychological character study of a man and his family. ‘Picture yourself’ in the protagonist’s shoes. You had been doing something wrong in the notions of society, in your past. It need not be just gun violence or drugs. Be it smoking or drinking. Be it domestic abuse. Be it bullying. Be it eve-teasing. Be it theft. And you have suffered a loss because of your practices, either physically in terms of a person, property, money, or health, or mentally in terms of relationships, peace of mind, or habits. You have realized this lately and now you wish for redemption. You promise yourself that you’ll never get back to your old self, and spend considerable time killing your alter ego. Now suddenly and unfortunately, your other self plays ‘peek-a-boo’ due to circumstances. What would your reaction be?

Guilt. Remorse. A feeling of hating yourself. “It was just a terrible thing to do.”, utters the HoV protagonist (Tom). In Leo too, Parthiban breaks down in the cafe right after the shootout happens. But where Leo differs from HoV is towards the ending. Tom carries the guilt even after killing his brother, now even more so since his past has been revealed to his family. In the final scene in his home, he reluctantly walks towards the dinner table hoping to be accepted, and the family does accept him. In Leo though, Parthiban is seen to be celebrating the return of Leo after killing his brother. He strikes a deal with his son for manipulating his wife and daughter. He considers managing to hide his past from his wife a feat. The two films fundamentally differ at this point. When a man had been bad in the past, but trying his best to be good in the present, who is he really now? Is he a wolf turned sheep, or just a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Tom appears to be the former. Leo appears to be the latter. Tom goes to extreme lengths to keep his family safe from his past, while Leo goes to extreme lengths to keep his past safe from his family.

This difference need not always be controversial (the glorification at the end could have been definitely avoided). It was truly a director’s touch given to the original. The makers might have wanted to deliberately change the arc to make the character more interesting, as the story doesn’t end here. But given that the universe’s heroes are fighting for a drug-free society, what’s missing in Leo that was present in Kaithi or Vikram (or even Master), is a point or scene where drugs are portrayed in a negative shade. And that’s why the hero’s glorification at the end feels problematic. But we also have a couple of questions unanswered, like Leo’s ‘true’ past, and his current attitude towards drugs. Justifying these with ‘non- narabali’ kinda explanations will help Leo rediscover himself (and itself).