Bhagat Singh - A late reaction
Ritu
In saw the 'Legend of Bhagat Singh' yesterday. The one with Ajay
Devgun. Thought I'd pen down a few random thoughts about it and put
forth a few questions that tickled my mind.
General impressions: The film by and large was good. It was an honest
attempt to veer away from sterotypes and try and understand the pysche
of these revolutionaries. Delve into their ideologies and motivations.
It has succeeded to a great extent in that sphere. The
characterisations are great. Each bit role is also very well-etched
out. And apart from the heroine (who cannot discard her city bred
look) everyone looks their part. I partcularly liked the lighter
moments provided by Sukhdev and Rajguru.
However, I somehow felt Gandhi was given a raw deal in the whole
affair. I know bashing Gandhi is the fashionable these days, however
coming from a family that was staunchly Gandhian (in those days) I've
never really been exposed to Gandhi's drawbacks as such. Though I can
be very objective on this issue my reading was that Gandhi and Nehru
were unfairly painted as the villians of the piece.
Did the congress demand for 'Purna Swaraj' come only after the Bhagat
Singh wave caught on?. The film insinuates that Congress demanded
'Purna Swaraaj' only because Bhagat Singh was getting very popular on
the same platform. Could anyone who has more than a passing knowledge
on this era throw some light on the historical accuracy of the film?
Incidentally AR Rehman's score was really pathetic. Enforces my
opinion that Rehman is not meant for periodicals. The Punjabi number
was really pathetic.
Cheers
Ritu
Dr. Jai Maharaj
rc0...@rediffmail.com (Ritu) posted:
Shukriyaa for posting your review. Any patriot who helps
in getting rid of foreigners occupying the homeland is
a national hero. It is for this reason that any film or
book that is anti-Gandhi is also anti-national. Remove
the Muslim-Brit ideological influence from Mollywood and
you waould have eliminated the anti-national element. The
same goes for the Muslim terrorists who have infiltrated
the film industry: get rid of them.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Girish Bhat
> Shukriyaa for posting your review. Any patriot who helps
> in getting rid of foreigners occupying the homeland is
> a national hero. It is for this reason that any film or
> book that is anti-Gandhi is also anti-national.
Jai, Jai, Jai. Stop posing will ya? You don't want me to explain what this is
all about do you, jai?
Girish Bhat
>
> However, I somehow felt Gandhi was given a raw deal in the whole
> affair. I know bashing Gandhi is the fashionable these days, however
Ritu you know my biases. ;-) And I tell you that such people are
Hijras. Na-Mards. the b-cs are incapable of understanding or achieving
anything
and complacently go around bashing others. Frick them.
Dena Jo
Thread plonk.
--
Dena Jo
Dr. Jai Maharaj
giris...@my-deja.com (Girish Bhat) posted:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
Huh?
Girish Bhat
>
> coming from a family that was staunchly Gandhian (in those days) I've
> never really been exposed to Gandhi's drawbacks as such. Though I can
For the record, would you tell us what drawbacks/defects/shortcomings
the great Santhoshi talked about?
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"Dena Jo" <den...@cs.com> posted:
> No one in MWS does.
How would a scopist know? Dena Jo Kanner is a scopist:
[ Last update: 7 August 2002
[
[ La Quinta - Dena Kanner, E-mail: den...@cs.com
[
[ Phone: 760-772-0390 (try also: 760-772-0380)
[ Fax: 603-843-9709
[
[ Equipment: Case CATalyst, Premier Power, Eclipse 8.3,
[ DigitalCAT, Ozpc
[
[ Description: 10 years' experience scoping for deposition
[ reporters. Some (admittedly very little) court work.
[ Bryan College of Court Reporting dropout (made it as far
[ as 140-160 and completed all the academic courses), B.A.
[ degree in English from UCLA, strong medical background.
[ Reasonable rates, good turnaround, email receipt and
[ delivery of work.
[
[ Source - http://www.scopists.com/scdir
Arun Verma
what are you talking about?
The music by Rahman as always was excellent. Mahive and Jogiya were awesome
and his adaptation of Sarfaroshi was very creative! Its right up there with
Lagaan and Zubedia...
"Ritu" <rc0...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:8777cccd.02090...@posting.google.com...
Ritu
Isn't that a very juvenile view to the whole thing, Girish? Bhagat
Singh, Subash Chandra Bose, Chandrashekhar 'Azad' were all against
Gandhi's philosophy. Were they non-achievers? I see in the western
part of India there is a lot of anti- gandhism. I'm not sure of
Bengal. But it's just a whole lot of people who believe in ideals that
were different from theirs.
There was a whole school out there that did not agree with Gandhi's
philosophy of non-violence and satyagraha. Bhagat Singh was one of
them. It is obvious that a film about Bhagat Singh would talk about a
clash of values between him and Gandhi/Nehru. But showing Gandhi as
being insecure of Bhagat Singh or congress being power hungry way back
in the 30s is also questionable. One wants to the know the historical
accuracy of such depictions.
Personally, I believe in Gandhi's path. It was as difficult as the
path followed by Bose and Azad. Somehow after 50 years of independence
the Gandhian way of life seems to be far removed from reality for
most.
Though, I must say one thing in film. It did make you (atleast me)
realise the value of freedom. Everything that we take for granted
today was denied to us then. The last line in the film is particularly
poignant. Scores of people like Bhagat Singh gave up their lives for
the dream of an independent India. What have we done of that legacy?
Corruption, killings in the name of religion.. you name the vice and
we have it. Did their sacrifice go in waste?
Ritu
Dr. Jai Maharaj
under all circumstances. They are wrong. Here's what he said:
"I do believe that where there is only
a choice between cowardice and violence I
would advise violence . . . but non-violence
is infinitely superior to violence."
- Mahatma Gandhi.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
In article <8777cccd.02090...@posting.google.com>,
rc0...@rediffmail.com (Ritu) posted:
Girish Bhat
> Corruption, killings in the name of religion.. you name the vice and
> we have it. Did their sacrifice go in waste?
>
<Sigh> I want the padded cell next to Jai.
Hare Krshn,
girish
Vishal
> opinion that Rehman is not meant for periodicals. The Punjabi number
> was really pathetic.
>
which song are you referring to/.
Vishal
Girish Bhat
> path followed by Bose and Azad. Somehow after 50 years of independence
> the Gandhian way of life seems to be far removed from reality for
> most.
I will try and explain to the best of my limited ability some other time.
But yes, 90% of the congress leaders were worthless Chutiyas even back then.
regards,
girish
Shishir Yerramilli
I am sorry but this needs to be crossposted to sci!
I agree Gandhi was not a hijra-a pervert who used to sleep with his
granddaughters to prove that he is not a hijra!A weakling who used to
envy to Muslim classmates muscular physique and then proceeded to eat
meat to gain weight on his scrawny frame but then he heard the goat
bleating in his stomach and gave up meat forever,this proves he is not
a hijra!When he found out that his father passed away when he was
playing hide the salami with Kasturba he gave up sex for life,this
proves..yuck excuse while I go vomit.....ah yes this proves that he
was not a hijra.His utter failure at curbing communal riots in which
invariably Hindus were the victims and he was quoted as saying "I have
never used Ahimsa in riots but I look forward to it!",this proves he
was not a hijra.He said that Pakistan took place over his dead body
and when it occured only did he disgracefully keep living(Mahatma
indeed) but went on a hunger strike to pressure Patel to give Pakistan
55 crores.Thank god Tyagi Nathuram Godse put that non Hijra out of his
macho misery!
Anyone Indian who is a fan or follower of Gandhi should be ashamed
and I recommend that they either change or commit suicide!
Shishir Yerramilli
> >
> > Personally, I believe in Gandhi's path. It was as difficult as the
> > path followed by Bose and Azad. Somehow after 50 years of independence
> > the Gandhian way of life seems to be far removed from reality for
> > most.
>
> I will try and explain to the best of my limited ability some other time.
Of course Girish if you are a Gandhian your abilities will be limited indeed!
> But yes, 90% of the congress leaders were worthless Chutiyas even back then.
Why was only Congress suitable for leading the nation!
> regards,
> girish
Ritu
My My! Girish, usage of such unparlimentary language? Shaant
gadhadhaari bheem. You can make your point without colorful expletives
:-)
Cheers
Ritu
Supreme2007
You do not have to go overboard with your opinion.
If India were to be intolerant, no opposing views would be permitted to
stand.
That is not the case today; neither was it in the past. Tolerance is what
makes a cultured society different from an uncultured one.
In that light, the views of any person or organization may be tested on
their own merits, independent of the person who voiced it.
Attacking the person (instead of his ideas) is old hat.
It is not a real debate.
If you really want to attack someone, there are enemies to attack. Why do
you go after your own people, the easy targets ?
Shishir Yerramilli
I am going to assume this diatribe is directed at me.
> You do not have to go overboard with your opinion.
Why not?Gandhians do it all the time!
>
> If India were to be intolerant, no opposing views would be permitted to
> stand.
No one is calling for intolerance,just some perspective!
>
> That is not the case today; neither was it in the past. Tolerance is what
> makes a cultured society different from an uncultured one.
>
> In that light, the views of any person or organization may be tested on
> their own merits, independent of the person who voiced it.
>
> Attacking the person (instead of his ideas) is old hat.
Unfortunately his ideas are absurd to be commented on.Such overblown
personalities should not escape criticism.
> It is not a real debate.
Gandhians dont like such debates anyway as it exposes the hollow and
ridiculous nature of their ideals.
> If you really want to attack someone, there are enemies to attack. Why do
> you go after your own people, the easy targets ?
Interesting..Who are my people and how are they easy targets?
Girish Bhat
> giris...@my-deja.com (Girish Bhat) wrote in message news:<670ce6f3.02090...@posting.google.com>...
> > rc0...@rediffmail.com (Ritu) wrote in message news:<8777cccd.02090...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > Personally, I believe in Gandhi's path. It was as difficult as the
> > > path followed by Bose and Azad. Somehow after 50 years of independence
> > > the Gandhian way of life seems to be far removed from reality for
> > > most.
> >
> > I will try and explain to the best of my limited ability some other time.
> > But yes, 90% of the congress leaders were worthless Chutiyas even back then.
> >
> > regards,
> > girish
>
>
> My My! Girish, usage of such unparlimentary language? Shaant
> gadhadhaari bheem. You can make your point without colorful expletives
> :-)
<grin> Rituji, In all seriousness, you really are too decent a person to
waste your time on ramli. We are like dog's own tail. You are keeping
tail inside pipe, pipe is becoming crooked but the tail will be
remaining crooked only. ;-)
Deepaks
"Ritu" <rc0...@rediffmail.com> wrote>
> In saw the 'Legend of Bhagat Singh' yesterday. The one with Ajay
> Devgun. Thought I'd pen down a few random thoughts about it and put
> forth a few questions that tickled my mind.
> However, I somehow felt Gandhi was given a raw deal in the whole
> affair. I know bashing Gandhi is the fashionable these days, however
> coming from a family that was staunchly Gandhian (in those days) I've
> never really been exposed to Gandhi's drawbacks as such. Though I can
> be very objective on this issue my reading was that Gandhi and Nehru
> were unfairly painted as the villians of the piece.
I liked the film & Ajay Devgan very much and I loved its music as well. I
loved the whole sequence related to the hunger strike in prison. The only
parts I didn't like was AD singing Mahive, even if the song is beautiful if
heard apart.
Recently, we were having a discussion about Gandhi and his experiments with
brahmcharya involving women and my mother was sitting there. Being an ardent
Gandhi-bhakt, she could not believe some of the things which were being said
about those experiments and about Gandhi. She was equally horrified about
some remarks about 'stupidness' of Kasturba attributed to Gandhi.
I think that when we make icons out of persons, some parts of what they
thought or did become predominent, while all things negative or not in line
with the positive parts are ignored and forgotten. Attenborough's Gandhi did
try to do that, ignoring the negative parts. Personally I can admire Gandhi
for many of his ideas and the way he could inspire a movement of Ahimsa (and
continues to inspire new generations of young persons in the world even
now). Thus, coming back to your point about the characterisation of Gandhi
in 'The Legend...', I don't know if it was entirely true or was exagerated
because it was a view from the 'other' side, but even if true, IMHO it does
not take away from the greatness of Gandhi - he was just a normal human
being with some great thoughts.
Regards,
Deepaks
Ritu
> "Ritu" <rc0...@rediffmail.com> wrote>
> > In saw the 'Legend of Bhagat Singh' yesterday. The one with Ajay
> > Devgun. Thought I'd pen down a few random thoughts about it and put
> > forth a few questions that tickled my mind.
> ><snip>
> > However, I somehow felt Gandhi was given a raw deal in the whole
> > affair. I know bashing Gandhi is the fashionable these days, however
> > coming from a family that was staunchly Gandhian (in those days) I've
> > never really been exposed to Gandhi's drawbacks as such. Though I can
> > be very objective on this issue my reading was that Gandhi and Nehru
> > were unfairly painted as the villians of the piece.
>
> I liked the film & Ajay Devgan very much and I loved its music as well. I
> loved the whole sequence related to the hunger strike in prison. The only
> parts I didn't like was AD singing Mahive, even if the song is beautiful if
> heard apart.
Great Deepak!. Good to hear a balanced opinion of the whole issue.
While on the music since the protest came from people who have uptill
now displayed a good taste in music I decided to give the music 2-3
more hearings. Rehman's music anyway never appeals in the first
hearing. So after giving it a couple of more hearings here is my
opinion.
The music of the film is pretty decent. The 'sarfaroshi ki tammana'
number has some good instrumental and chorus pieces. The 'Des mere'
number is also nice as is 'Mahive'. The bhangra number suffers the
fate of all Rehman's folk inspired numbers. It lacks the 2 basic
ingridients of folk music
a) A fluidity in rhythm and melody (esp Punjabi folk is very has very
easy and free flowling rhythm)
b) A strong emotional content.
The Bhangra number fails on both accounts as does the adaptation of
'Mera rang de basanti chola'. To grant it to Rehman after such a
popular version already existing it was not very easy for him to tune
to another foot tapping tune. But anyway.. the point is that these two
numbers maybe great fusion music it does not really get one humming.
However, for the numbers that are good compositions by themselves are
too should I say subtle (maybe not subtle but not apt) to lend
themselves to good picturisations. At best they could have been used
as background songs. The voices of the singers, the recording (the
typical electronic strain) does not suit any of the characters. Not
even one of the songs (including sarfaroshi ki tammana) fit into the
flow of the film. The emotions of the moment are almost never
expressed aptly by the song. To me the songs were distractions in the
film. Not required at all. At max they could have been used as
background songs.
There were a few questions I had about the film (yes more :-))
1. Who was the actor who played Jatin Das ? He seems to be very
familiar. I simply can't place him.
2. Was the person who took the body of Jatin Das from prison Subash
Chandra Bose? Anyone knows
3. Was Rajguru actually that childish?
4. Who was the lady they called Bhabhi in the film
Talking about the things I liked in the film. I liked the way the
characters in the film spoke with the accents of the place they came
from. It was very authentic. A great break from the anglecised,
trying-to-be-bengali accents of Aishwarya in Devdas or Amir Khan's
pathetic attempts at Avadhi in Lagaan. Though the heroine was still
quite bad at it. But Sukhdev, Rajguru, Chandra Shekhar Azad, Jatin
Das, Batukeshwar dutt.. they all not only looked their parts but also
spoke like people from those areas. (Though the chap playing Jatin Das
once or twice spoke like a Maharastrian rather than a bengali) but it
was well done. I found the period recreation far superior than a film
like Lagaan.
Also, I know the character of Sukhdev was designed oh! so subtely to
play to the galleries and I unashamedly confess that I was one of
those to play into the directors hands. I think I shed more tears for
Sukhdev than Bhagat Singh (despite of being a great Ajay Devgan fan).
A great performance by whoever that actor who played Sukhdev. The
scene where he breaks down after Kishorilal betrays him was splendid.
>
> Recently, we were having a discussion about Gandhi and his experiments with
> brahmcharya involving women and my mother was sitting there. Being an ardent
> Gandhi-bhakt, she could not believe some of the things which were being said
> about those experiments and about Gandhi. She was equally horrified about
> some remarks about 'stupidness' of Kasturba attributed to Gandhi.
>
> I think that when we make icons out of persons, some parts of what they
> thought or did become predominent, while all things negative or not in line
> with the positive parts are ignored and forgotten. Attenborough's Gandhi did
> try to do that, ignoring the negative parts. Personally I can admire Gandhi
> for many of his ideas and the way he could inspire a movement of Ahimsa (and
> continues to inspire new generations of young persons in the world even
> now). Thus, coming back to your point about the characterisation of Gandhi
> in 'The Legend...', I don't know if it was entirely true or was exagerated
> because it was a view from the 'other' side, but even if true, IMHO it does
> not take away from the greatness of Gandhi - he was just a normal human
> being with some great thoughts.
Very well said. We do tend to make a icon out of people. We Indians as
a race are always more than willing to make gods out of human beings.
We do forget that Gandhi was human. It is possible that he also did
not like opposition to his ideas. What he did to Bose is also well
documented. And yes, like your mother I remember I had a shiver run
down my spine when I had read about his experiments with his
granddaughters with celibacy. We do tend to hide or suppress these
facts.
However, I agree, the path of Ahimsa is very difficult. While watching
the film, there were so many times I thought of what I would do in a
situation like those depicted in the film. To sacrifice yourself
selflessly for a cause (esp. when you had a comfortable life
otherwise) is something I don't think I'd be able to carry through to
the end. And to not retaliate and follow the path of non-violence
makes it doubly difficult.. just ruminating... my thoughts completely.
I can understand people could feel differently.
Regards
Ritu
Deepaks
"Ritu" <rc0...@rediffmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> The music of the film is pretty decent. The 'sarfaroshi ki tammana'
> number has some good instrumental and chorus pieces. The 'Des mere'
> number is also nice as is 'Mahive'. The bhangra number suffers the
> fate of all Rehman's folk inspired numbers. It lacks the 2 basic
> ingridients of folk music
> a) A fluidity in rhythm and melody (esp Punjabi folk is very has very
> easy and free flowling rhythm)
> b) A strong emotional content.
> The Bhangra number fails on both accounts as does the adaptation of
> 'Mera rang de basanti chola'. To grant it to Rehman after such a
> popular version already existing it was not very easy for him to tune
> to another foot tapping tune. But anyway.. the point is that these two
> numbers maybe great fusion music it does not really get one humming.
>
> However, for the numbers that are good compositions by themselves are
> too should I say subtle (maybe not subtle but not apt) to lend
> themselves to good picturisations. At best they could have been used
> as background songs. The voices of the singers, the recording (the
> typical electronic strain) does not suit any of the characters. Not
> even one of the songs (including sarfaroshi ki tammana) fit into the
> flow of the film. The emotions of the moment are almost never
> expressed aptly by the song. To me the songs were distractions in the
> film. Not required at all. At max they could have been used as
> background songs.
>
Probably I didn't watch the film with too much attention - usually, my first
watching of a film, especially if I like it, is very emotional and very
little analytical. To be analytical I need to watch the film more times! Any
way, I did like the way all the different songs were picturised, especially
Mera Rang de and Sarfaroshi ki tamanna..to me they seemed to fit very well
in the flow of the film. However, may be I would be more critically aware,
the next time I watch it!
> There were a few questions I had about the film (yes more :-))
> 1. Who was the actor who played Jatin Das ? He seems to be very
> familiar. I simply can't place him.
> 2. Was the person who took the body of Jatin Das from prison Subash
> Chandra Bose? Anyone knows
> 3. Was Rajguru actually that childish?
> 4. Who was the lady they called Bhabhi in the film
>
The person who came to take Jatin Das's body did look like Bose. I don't
know the answer to any of your other questions, though I too feel very
curious about the character of Bhabhi and if corresponds to someone who
really existed.
Regards,
Deepaks
Vishal
>
>
> > There were a few questions I had about the film (yes more :-))
> > 1. Who was the actor who played Jatin Das ? He seems to be very
> > familiar. I simply can't place him.
his name is Amitabh Bhattacharjee, though I do not know about other
movies/serials he acted in. He did resemble Rajit Kapoor ( Vyomkesh Bakshi
fame)
> > 2. Was the person who took the body of Jatin Das from prison Subash
> > Chandra Bose? Anyone knows
> > 3. Was Rajguru actually that childish?
> > 4. Who was the lady they called Bhabhi in the film
Durga Bhabhi, was the wife of one of their friend by the name
Bhagavaticharan.
> >
>
> The person who came to take Jatin Das's body did look like Bose. I don't
> know the answer to any of your other questions, though I too feel very
> curious about the character of Bhabhi and if corresponds to someone who
> really existed.
>
yes, she did actually exist
Vishal
> Regards,
>
> Deepaks
>
>
Ritu
> "Deepaks" <sunil....@tin.it> wrote in message
> news:erzf9.79549$ub2.1...@news1.tin.it...
> >
> >
> > > There were a few questions I had about the film (yes more :-))
> > > 1. Who was the actor who played Jatin Das ? He seems to be very
> > > familiar. I simply can't place him.
>
> his name is Amitabh Bhattacharjee, though I do not know about other
> movies/serials he acted in. He did resemble Rajit Kapoor ( Vyomkesh Bakshi
> fame)
Hmm... though he is in the same mould as Rajit Kapoor in Vyomkesh
Bakshi now that you say so. I'm sure I've seen him somewhere else(I
can distinctly recall Rajit Kapoor's face as different from this
chap). btw I remember our man Vyomkesh Bakshi was really popular
amongst the ladies those days. :-)
>
> > > 2. Was the person who took the body of Jatin Das from prison Subash
> > > Chandra Bose? Anyone knows
> > > 3. Was Rajguru actually that childish?
> > > 4. Who was the lady they called Bhabhi in the film
> Durga Bhabhi, was the wife of one of their friend by the name
> Bhagavaticharan.
I thought that Durga Bhabhi was different and this lady who was a part
of the group. Somehow I got an impression she was someone else. Esp
since they showed no interaction between her and Bhagwati. But maybe
you are right. That seems to be the most logical explanatiob. Btw,
which version of the film that was blessed by Bhagat Singh's family?
Tks
Ritu
yeskay
>....
>
> However, for the numbers that are good compositions by themselves are
> too should I say subtle (maybe not subtle but not apt) to lend
> themselves to good picturisations. At best they could have been used
> as background songs. The voices of the singers, the recording (the
> typical electronic strain) does not suit any of the characters. Not
> even one of the songs (including sarfaroshi ki tammana) fit into the
> flow of the film. The emotions of the moment are almost never
> expressed aptly by the song. To me the songs were distractions in the
> film. Not required at all. At max they could have been used as
> background songs.
>
I thought the music was pretty decent too. I don't care too much about
Bhangra. So, I wouldn't know even if it is bad. But, some of the songs were
good and picturised well (credit to Santoshi). The last scene with
'Mera rang de' was touching and very effective. I don't like Devgun so
much, but he had (all had) acted very well in the movie.
As you said, some of the lovey-dovey songs were not required and were
a distraction. That whole love angle should've been avoided. Also, some
of the court scenes were not handled well in the movie, became too
comical and lost seriousness. But the events that take place after the
court scenes (in the jail) were handled well and I felt was the most
effective part of the movie.
> There were a few questions I had about the film (yes more :-))
> 1. Who was the actor who played Jatin Das ? He seems to be very
> familiar. I simply can't place him.
> 2. Was the person who took the body of Jatin Das from prison Subash
> Chandra Bose? Anyone knows
Yes, it was indended to be SC Bose. He also comes in one of the
Congress meetings confronting Gandhi. Even the get-up of the guy
was very much Bose-like.
> 3. Was Rajguru actually that childish?
I had read a book on the trio (a factual account) which attributed such
references to Rajguru.
> 4. Who was the lady they called Bhabhi in the film
>
> Talking about the things I liked in the film. I liked the way the
> characters in the film spoke with the accents of the place they came
> from. It was very authentic. A great break from the anglecised,
> trying-to-be-bengali accents of Aishwarya in Devdas or Amir Khan's
> pathetic attempts at Avadhi in Lagaan.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Although I'm biased about this, why do you think this was so pathetic?
I thought it was not irritating at least. If you see
Dilip Kumar's or Raj Kapoor (Teesri Kasam), Aamir Khan had done a better
job at such similar attempts (not necessarily Avadhi) in being authentic.
His comic sense with the language was also very good when he explains
what he knows about cricket.
Though the heroine was still
> quite bad at it. But Sukhdev, Rajguru, Chandra Shekhar Azad, Jatin
> Das, Batukeshwar dutt.. they all not only looked their parts but also
> spoke like people from those areas. (Though the chap playing Jatin Das
> once or twice spoke like a Maharastrian rather than a bengali) but it
> was well done. I found the period recreation far superior than a film
> like Lagaan.
>
Lagaan was fictional, you can't compare. There were no villagers in
1885 who had such immense ability to adapt to a new skill or concept
so fast ( 3 months is it). So, where is the recreation of it then?
> Also, I know the character of Sukhdev was designed oh! so subtely to
> play to the galleries and I unashamedly confess that I was one of
> those to play into the directors hands. I think I shed more tears for
> Sukhdev than Bhagat Singh (despite of being a great Ajay Devgan fan).
> A great performance by whoever that actor who played Sukhdev.
I think it is Sushant, the guy who played a Veerappan-like character in
Jungle. He was the second lead in December 16. Quite good actor (one of
NSD types).
>The scene where he breaks down after Kishorilal betrays him was splendid.
>
> Very well said. We do tend to make a icon out of people. We Indians as
> a race are always more than willing to make gods out of human beings.
> We do forget that Gandhi was human. It is possible that he also did
> not like opposition to his ideas. What he did to Bose is also well
> documented. And yes, like your mother I remember I had a shiver run
> down my spine when I had read about his experiments with his
> granddaughters with celibacy. We do tend to hide or suppress these
> facts.
>
> However, I agree, the path of Ahimsa is very difficult. While watching
> the film, there were so many times I thought of what I would do in a
> situation like those depicted in the film. To sacrifice yourself
> selflessly for a cause (esp. when you had a comfortable life
> otherwise) is something I don't think I'd be able to carry through to
> the end. And to not retaliate and follow the path of non-violence
> makes it doubly difficult.. just ruminating... my thoughts completely.
> I can understand people could feel differently.
I feel the Ahmisa theory of Gandhi was more glorified by the British and
the western media. more than it actually was in India. Also the Govts
after the Independence was Congress which took it a little further
calling him the father of the nationa et all.
shalu
> "Vishal" <vr...@spame.nyc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<6aAf9.29565$hh.65...@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
> >
> > fame)
>
expected the statement to read "Rajit Kapur (National Award winner
for Best Actor - The Making Of Mahatma)".
Specially when we have seen Gandhi being mentioned in the same thread
with extreme opinions.
- Shalu
Balaji A.S. Murthy
says...
>
>I feel the Ahmisa theory of Gandhi was more glorified by the British and
>the western media. more than it actually was in India. Also the Govts
>after the Independence was Congress which took it a little further
>calling him the father of the nationa et all.
Don't distort our language. The word is 'ahinsaa' not 'ahimsa'. And,
the rashtrapitaa's name is Gandhee. The angrez distort our names and you people
just follow them.
- Balaji
Vishal
"shalu" <this_i...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D7FA261...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> Now now ... we are being unfair to Rajit Kapur here. I would have
> expected the statement to read "Rajit Kapur (National Award winner
> for Best Actor - The Making Of Mahatma)".
> Specially when we have seen Gandhi being mentioned in the same thread
> with extreme opinions.
>
> - Shalu
I haven't seen that movie, and unfortunately, I haven't seen Suraj ka
Satwaan Ghoda either, hence I referred to him as Vyomkesh Bakshi. That was
definitely his first claim to fame, and his first success. The last I
remember seeing him is in Zubeida, and Hari Bhari. Did he do any movies
recently? Commercial/Art?
Vishal
shalu
> > expected the statement to read "Rajit Kapur (National Award winner
> > for Best Actor - The Making Of Mahatma)".
> > Specially when we have seen Gandhi being mentioned in the same thread
> > with extreme opinions.
>
> Satwaan Ghoda either, hence I referred to him as Vyomkesh Bakshi. That was
> definitely his first claim to fame, and his first success. The last I
> remember seeing him is in Zubeida, and Hari Bhari. Did he do any movies
> recently? Commercial/Art?
>
incorrect to say that all of his parallel cinema output has come
with Shyam Benegal. Suraj Ka Satawan Ghoda, The Making of Mahatma saw
him in pivotal roles while he was also seen in Hari Bhari, Samar and
the Benegal-Khalid Mohammad-Plus Channels trilogy Sardari Begum,
Mammo and Zubeida. Benegal has not made any movie after Zubeida so
Rajit Kapur has also not appeared on any after that. The only
commercial film he was seen in was Ghulam as Amir's elder brother.
He was also in some movie about aids but the name eludes me now.
- Shalu
Alok
> In article <3D7F6B69...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com>, new_...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com
> says...
>>
>>I feel the Ahmisa theory of Gandhi was more glorified by the British and
>>the western media. more than it actually was in India. Also the Govts
>>after the Independence was Congress which took it a little further
>>calling him the father of the nationa et all.
>
> Don't distort our language. The word is 'ahinsaa' not 'ahimsa'. And,
It is Ahi*sa, where * represents a (an?) "anuswaar". This is neither "n"
nor "m".
> the rashtrapitaa's name is Gandhee. The angrez distort our names and you people
Why not raashtrapitaa and Gaandhee? Even then, how do you successfully
represent the sound difference between the first and the second "t" in
raashtrapitaa?
We could write something like rAStrapiTA or something or other, but
where the meaning is obvious, we don't need to, right?
-Alok
--
Beat your son every day; you may not know why, but he will.
Ritu
Talking of Vyomkesh Bakshi, I had a question. Was it by any chance
based on Satyajit Ray's Feluda? I've been reading that off and on and
I feel maybe it was though I don't remember much of the serial. Does
anyone remember?
- Ritu
>
> Vishal
Alok
>
> Talking of Vyomkesh Bakshi, I had a question. Was it by any chance
> based on Satyajit Ray's Feluda? I've been reading that off and on and
> I feel maybe it was though I don't remember much of the serial. Does
> anyone remember?
I thought it was based on Sherlock Holmes.
-Alok
--
I am not sure what this is, but an `F' would only dignify it.
-- English Professor
Ritu
My mistake. Yes, it should be ahinsa and not ahimsa. I guess one gets
influenced by the written word when one writes (meaning one
sub-conciously picks the spelling one has read most often). However,
yes it is 'ahinsa'. Though I have question. I have seen the the 'ang
ki bindi' as in 'Singha (lion)' is often transcribed as Simha (what
say Arun?). It seems to be pretty common usage down south. What is
your take on that?
However, when it comes to Gandhi. I have **never** seen Gandhi
transcribed as **Gandhee**.. it's always Gandhi. Generally 'i' and
'ee' are interchangeable when transcribing from hindi to English so
both 'Geeta' and 'Gita' are accepted spellings. So, I see nothing
wrong with Gandhi. It is common usage.
>
> - Balaji
yeskay
Ritu wrote:
>
> bmu...@yahoo.com (Balaji A.S. Murthy) wrote in message news:<alo8b8$t...@news.or.intel.com>...
> > In article <3D7F6B69...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com>, new_...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com
> > says...
> > >
> > >I feel the Ahmisa theory of Gandhi was more glorified by the British and
> > >the western media. more than it actually was in India. Also the Govts
> > >after the Independence was Congress which took it a little further
> > >calling him the father of the nationa et all.
> >
> > Don't distort our language. The word is 'ahinsaa' not 'ahimsa'. And,
> > the rashtrapitaa's name is Gandhee. The angrez distort our names and you people
> > just follow them.
>
> My mistake. Yes, it should be ahinsa and not ahimsa. I guess one gets
> influenced by the written word when one writes (meaning one
> sub-conciously picks the spelling one has read most often). However,
> yes it is 'ahinsa'. Though I have question. I have seen the the 'ang
> ki bindi' as in 'Singha (lion)' is often transcribed as Simha (what
> say Arun?). It seems to be pretty common usage down south. What is
> your take on that?
>
It is pronounced as 'Simha' (as in Simulation) in Kannada atleast.
May be Simham in Telugu. I don't know about Tamil and Malayalam.
> However, when it comes to Gandhi. I have **never** seen Gandhi
> transcribed as **Gandhee**.. it's always Gandhi. Generally 'i' and
> 'ee' are interchangeable when transcribing from hindi to English so
> both 'Geeta' and 'Gita' are accepted spellings. So, I see nothing
> wrong with Gandhi. It is common usage.
No, I don't think they were serious and were being sarcastic of
a stupid Jyotishi who quibbles like this very often in rmim.
Alok
> bmu...@yahoo.com (Balaji A.S. Murthy) wrote in message news:<alo8b8$t...@news.or.intel.com>...
>> In article <3D7F6B69...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com>, new_...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com
>> says...
>> >
>> >I feel the Ahmisa theory of Gandhi was more glorified by the British and
>> >the western media. more than it actually was in India. Also the Govts
>> >after the Independence was Congress which took it a little further
>> >calling him the father of the nationa et all.
>>
>> Don't distort our language. The word is 'ahinsaa' not 'ahimsa'. And,
>> the rashtrapitaa's name is Gandhee. The angrez distort our names and you people
>> just follow them.
>
> My mistake. Yes, it should be ahinsa and not ahimsa. I guess one gets
> influenced by the written word when one writes (meaning one
> sub-conciously picks the spelling one has read most often). However,
> yes it is 'ahinsa'. Though I have question. I have seen the the 'ang
> ki bindi' as in 'Singha (lion)' is often transcribed as Simha (what
> say Arun?). It seems to be pretty common usage down south. What is
> your take on that?
The word isn NOT Ahinsa. Have you ever seen it written with a "half-n"?
You always see it written with a dot at the top of "hi". That is because
it represents one of the "vowels" (the first of the two things: "ang"
and "visarga" that we put at the end of the vowels list in the Hindi
alphabet). Correct me if I am wrong though.
Same goes with "Simha". In general, it is a "half-alphabet" if the
alphabet following the dot (bindi) is any of the 25 initial vowels (the
"vargas": ka-varg, ch-varg, Ta-varg, ta-varg, pa-varg, each taking the
last letter of the corresponding varg for the meaning of bindi.)
The rule is complicated to describe, but the following example should
make it clear:
Sambandh: m => m and n => n
chanchal: n => the last alphabet in ch-varg:
------------
_ |
\ |
|--|
_ / |
|
--_
\
\
jungle: n => the last alphabet in ka-varg (because g is in that group)
(I don't think I will be able to draw that, but you get the idea).
ahinsa: n => ardh-bindi, because s in not in any of the vargas.
> However, when it comes to Gandhi. I have **never** seen Gandhi
> transcribed as **Gandhee**.. it's always Gandhi. Generally 'i' and
> 'ee' are interchangeable when transcribing from hindi to English so
> both 'Geeta' and 'Gita' are accepted spellings. So, I see nothing
> wrong with Gandhi. It is common usage.
Yeah, and if one were to be so pedantic, why Gandhee and not Gaandhee?
-Alok
--
A child of 5 could understand this! Fetch me a child of 5.
Ritu
> Ritu wrote:
> >....
> >
> > However, for the numbers that are good compositions by themselves are
> > too should I say subtle (maybe not subtle but not apt) to lend
> > themselves to good picturisations. At best they could have been used
> > as background songs. The voices of the singers, the recording (the
> > typical electronic strain) does not suit any of the characters. Not
> > even one of the songs (including sarfaroshi ki tammana) fit into the
> > flow of the film. The emotions of the moment are almost never
> > expressed aptly by the song. To me the songs were distractions in the
> > film. Not required at all. At max they could have been used as
> > background songs.
> >
>
> I thought the music was pretty decent too. I don't care too much about
> Bhangra. So, I wouldn't know even if it is bad. But, some of the songs were
> good and picturised well (credit to Santoshi). The last scene with
> 'Mera rang de' was touching and very effective. I don't like Devgun so
> much, but he had (all had) acted very well in the movie.
Well I guess I am biased here :-). I try very hard but I can't really
appreciate Rehman as a package deal. There is always something about
his music that almost always puts me off. I sometimes really really
wish he would do a recording for once in the conventional style. I
really think he has some nice melodies it's the typically electronic
quality that puts me off.
>
> As you said, some of the lovey-dovey songs were not required and were
> a distraction. That whole love angle should've been avoided. Also, some
> of the court scenes were not handled well in the movie, became too
> comical and lost seriousness. But the events that take place after the
> court scenes (in the jail) were handled well and I felt was the most
> effective part of the movie.
The love angle was fairly underplayed I think. They should have just
avoided that dream sequence. I believe it's worse in the other Bhagat
Singh where they got Aishwarya Rai to do the role of his girl-friend!
(Has anyone seen both the versions and comparative analysis would be
interesting). Though the girl here also was fairly anglicized. She
didn't quite fit in.
As far as the lighter scenes were concerned, I liked them. We have to
remember that at the end of the day all of them there were less than
25 years old. They would have had their lighter and juvenile moments.
Infact the court scenes somehow to me bring out the childishness that
would be expected out of a bunch of 20-23 year old boys. Bhagat Singh
was mature beyond his years but the rest of them weren't. It is not
unlikely that they could have behaved that way. Which brings me to the
point that each character was really well fleshed out. You don't only
notice Bhagat Singh but you notice Batukeshwar Dutt, you notice
Bhagwaticharan you notice Phonindranath Ghosh
>
> > 3. Was Rajguru actually that childish?
>
> I had read a book on the trio (a factual account) which attributed such
> references to Rajguru.
Do you remember which book? I would like to read it too. I'd be glad
if you could give me the details.
> >
> > Talking about the things I liked in the film. I liked the way the
> > characters in the film spoke with the accents of the place they came
> > from. It was very authentic. A great break from the anglecised,
> > trying-to-be-bengali accents of Aishwarya in Devdas or Amir Khan's
> > pathetic attempts at Avadhi in Lagaan.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Although I'm biased about this, why do you think this was so pathetic?
> I thought it was not irritating at least. If you see
> Dilip Kumar's or Raj Kapoor (Teesri Kasam), Aamir Khan had done a better
> job at such similar attempts (not necessarily Avadhi) in being authentic.
I am amazed that you think Aamir Khan's attempt at Avadhi is good in
the first place, comparing it to Dilip Kumar's brilliant performance
in Ganga Jamuna comes later. I don't know about you. But my parents
hail from the area where this dialect is spoken and let me assure you
Aamir Khan comes no where near the authentic way the language is
spoken (even his attempts at emulating their body language is very
strained). Even if you are not a bhaiyya, if you ever catch two people
from UP speaking with each other you'd realise how much off the mark
he is. Dilip Kumar on the other hand was brilliant. I think people in
UP loved Ganga Jamuna only because he spoke the way they do
(Vyjayanthimala ofcourse was pathetic). Raj Kapoor also though not
really great in Teesri Kasam was passable. Better than Aamir Khan
anyday.
Coming to diction, I hate to say it but no one really has mastered
that art in today's crop. Their cosmopolitan upbringing somehow
overpowers their power over this aspect of acting. In the earlier days
Dilip Kumar had mastered the act. If he spoke impeccable urdu he could
speak bhojpuri like a bhaiyya he could speak Haryanvi like a native.
Amitabh Bachchan was the last of the mohicans. After him there is
really nobody who belongs to that class.
Yes, Aamir khan generally is great in terms of body language, getup
etc. He was fantastic in Sarfarosh. But then he was playing the
average urban youth. When it comes to playing a villager not only him
but most of our actors of day barring Govinda(maybe) slip really
badly.
> His comic sense with the language was also very good when he explains
> what he knows about cricket.
>
> Though the heroine was still
> > quite bad at it. But Sukhdev, Rajguru, Chandra Shekhar Azad, Jatin
> > Das, Batukeshwar dutt.. they all not only looked their parts but also
> > spoke like people from those areas. (Though the chap playing Jatin Das
> > once or twice spoke like a Maharastrian rather than a bengali) but it
> > was well done. I found the period recreation far superior than a film
> > like Lagaan.
> >
>
> Lagaan was fictional, you can't compare. There were no villagers in
> 1885 who had such immense ability to adapt to a new skill or concept
> so fast ( 3 months is it). So, where is the recreation of it then?
Lagaan was a fantasy. Yes. But the brouhaha that was created about the
attention to detail to get the period setting etc. made one expect
something more authentic. The costumes were the first thing. They
could not make up their minds whether they wanted the gujrati look or
the UP/MP look. The end result was a mish mash. They spoke avadhi but
dressed like Gujratis! And their village set, I'm sorry to say, looked
more like the setting of the Suraj Kund crafts mela!!
Even the British Actors they got were so off the mark. To my mind they
dressed like the British and behaved like Indians. Very unconvincing.
In Bhagat Singh on the other hand not only were the costumes very well
done but even the sets were more convincing (though there was a
distinct Sephia tinge in the cinematography). I guess they got actors
from the particular regions they represented but the overall effect
certainly did not look like a bunch of mumbaiyyas out in a costume
drama (that's what Lagaan looked to me).
Cheers
Ritu
shalu
>
> In rec.arts.movies.local.indian, Ritu wrote:
> >
> > Talking of Vyomkesh Bakshi, I had a question. Was it by any chance
> > based on Satyajit Ray's Feluda? I've been reading that off and on and
>
>
directly based on that. Who made Vyomkesh Bakshi? Was it Hrishikesh
Mukherjee or Basu Chatterjee or someone else? Feluda being such a
celebrated piece of modern Bangla literature - it would have been
difficult for Vyomkesh Bakshi to be not inspired, specially with the
serial itself being set in Bengal.
Now that Feluda itself was inspired by Sherlock Holmes is a different
matter altogether.
BTW, there *was* a serial based on (and not inspired by) one of
Feluda's stories - the serial was called Kissa Kathmandu Ka wherein
Shashi Kapoor played Feluda and Mohan Aghase played his friend
(i dont remember his name now). the serial was directed by
Satyajit Ray's son.
There was a movie also made on a Feluda's story in Bangla. Name
eludes me. Ritu, if you have been reading Feluda, then you can get
more info from preface and epilogue.
- Shalu
rkusenet
>Yes, Aamir khan generally is great in terms of body language, getup
>etc. He was fantastic in Sarfarosh.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
except in the climax where he had to explain the pain of
parition and all hindu-muslim problem. He fell flat in
that scene. His limitation as an actor was exposed quite
brutally.
Aamir is good, but for only limited roles like
Aati hai kya khandala type.
rk-
ps: of course he is any day better than sha sha shahrukh khan.
Urmi
> Alok wrote:
> >
> > In rec.arts.movies.local.indian, Ritu wrote:
> > >
> > > Talking of Vyomkesh Bakshi, I had a question. Was it by any chance
> > > based on Satyajit Ray's Feluda? I've been reading that off and on and
> >
> > I thought it was based on Sherlock Holmes.
> >
> I read somewhere that Vyomkesh Bakshi was inspired by Feluda but not
> directly based on that. Who made Vyomkesh Bakshi? Was it Hrishikesh
> Mukherjee or Basu Chatterjee or someone else? Feluda being such a
> celebrated piece of modern Bangla literature - it would have been
> difficult for Vyomkesh Bakshi to be not inspired, specially with the
> serial itself being set in Bengal.
No no no, Byomkesh Bakshi was created by Saradindu Bandopadhyay a rather
famous Bengali author writing in the 1925 - 1960 period, i.e. much much
before Ray wrote Feluda. The other interesting thing is that Bandopadhyay
spent quite a lot of time in Bombay / Pune and wrote scripts for movies for
some time.
He is remembered for his Byomkesh Bakshi books and also excellent historical
novels and short stories. He wrote a Bengali version of Anthony Hope's
'Prisoner of Zenda' called 'Jhinder Bandi' which was made into a movie
starring Uttam Kumar. Soumitra Chatterjee (i.e. Feluda in the two Ray movies
based on Feluda novels - Joy Baba Felunath & Sonar kella) played one of his
rare negative roles in it!!
> There was a movie also made on a Feluda's story in Bangla. Name
> eludes me.
Two, like I said above. Also Sandeep Ray made a couple of TV series on
Feluda starring Sabyasachi Chakraborty. But an interesting version was a
radio series made by Satyajit ray himself if I am not mistaken in the 80s
sometime.
Hope that helps,
Urmi
Shishir Yerramilli
> says...
> >
> >I feel the Ahmisa theory of Gandhi was more glorified by the British and
> >the western media. more than it actually was in India. Also the Govts
> >after the Independence was Congress which took it a little further
> >calling him the father of the nationa et all.
>
> Don't distort our language. The word is 'ahinsaa' not 'ahimsa'.
It is neither 'ahinsaa' or 'ahimsa' as you should know!I dont know
how to express the correct sound in Roman script.
And,
> the rashtrapitaa's name is Gandhee.
Gandhi maybe your pita Mr. Murthy but as a citizen of India I resent
the attempt to confuse him as the nations father.
The angrez distort our names and you people
> just follow them.
The Leftists and Gandhians invent fanciful propaganda about that
'gadha' and you people just follow it!
> - Balaji
Alok
...
> Who made Vyomkesh Bakshi? Was it Hrishikesh
> Mukherjee or Basu Chatterjee or someone else?
Basu Chatterjee.
<snip>
-Alok
--
It's not an optical illusion, it just looks like one.
-- Phil White
Balaji Murthy
news:370a0b0.02091...@posting.google.com...
>
> It is neither 'ahinsaa' or 'ahimsa' as you should know!I dont know
> how to express the correct sound in Roman script.
>
I'm gratified that so many people followed this thread. Which implies that
people didn't follow the other (rightfully ignorable) thread I was involved.
- Balaji
yeskay
They probably couldn't get your sarcasm 'cause the idiot Jyotish Maharaj is in
most peoples' kill-file. Only because you responded to his post, I could read
what that thread was all about.
Anyway, I think we should use Gaandhi or Gandhee instead of Gandhi, as Gandhi
can also be a slur (as in Gandhi harkath)
Baradwaj Rangan
'The Legend of Bhagat Singh'
http://www.sitagita.com/article.asp?cyberspace=36-10-0-0&leafId=7950
The Plot
Deeply affected by violent events during his childhood, Bhagat Singh
(Ajay Devgan) grows up with ideologies quite unlike those of the
'ahimsa' toting Gandhi. He becomes part of the Hindustan Socialist
Republican Army, with fellow revolutionaries Sukhdev (Sushant Singh),
Rajguru (D Santosh) and Chandrashekhar Azad (Akhilendra Mishra).
Realizing that it's going to take more than the killing of stray
Englishmen to make his clarion call heard across the country, Singh
and colleague Batukeshwar Dutt bomb the Central Legislative Assembly
and surrender themselves. His statements in the ensuing court case and
his hunger strike to demand better living conditions for prisoners
make him a national hero. Fearing the spread of his influence, the
British execute Singh, along with Sukhdev and Rajguru, on 23rd March
1931.
The Review
Towards the end of this superb film, Bhagat Singh meets his family for
the last time. He embraces his sister, brothers, father (Raj Babbar),
and finally comes to his mother (Farida Jalal). In a selfish moment,
she wonders aloud if he ever thought of her amidst all the thinking
he's done about his country. And he gently replies, 'Jab yeh watan ke
baaren mein sochta tha to tu hi nazar aati thi.'
The directness and overpowering emotion of this scene encapsulate not
just Bhagat Singh the man, but 'The Legend of Bhagat Singh' itself,
the rare film that knows exactly what it wants to achieve, tell the
story of this young martyr in a commercially appealing format, and
goes about it with single-minded devotion.
Despite a career of mostly above-average output, including last year's
underrated 'Lajja', Raj Kumar Santoshi has never displayed the kind of
kinship with material or directorial fire that he does here, as is
evident from the very beginning. We see a montage of scenes from the
rest of the film, the images rushing by too quickly for you to fully
register what is happening, until a black hood is put on Bhagat
Singh's head just before his hanging, to the cry of 'Inquilaab
Zindabad'. Can you think of a better way of signaling to your audience
that your story is about a man whose short life went by in a blur of
patriotic activity?
The director's passion is contagious and his talented crew responds in
kind. Cinematographer KV Anand paints an exquisite canvas in earth
tones and art director Nitin Desai brings to life the minutest of
details like the word 'kranti' inscribed as graffiti on the walls of
the revolutionaries' hideout and a travelling ad for a Chaplin movie.
In this vivid conception of pre-Independence India, Santoshi stages
several astounding scenes, both epic (the murder attempt on a British
officer, the last minutes of Azad) and intimate (the framing of Singh
and his bride-to-be on opposite banks of a brook, foreshadowing that
togetherness is not to be). The freshness of the relatively unknown
but enormously effective cast surrounding Devgan, himself in fine
form, contributes immensely to the impact of these sequences.
The film is structured as a series of events -- Gandhi's calling for
and calling off the Non-Cooperation movement, Lala Lajpatrai's demise
due to the ruckus around the Simon Commission -- and Singh's response
to these events, sometimes with assassination plans, sometimes by
hurling bombs. Santoshi and his writers hardwire you directly to
Singh's version of things. A speech of Gandhi's emphasizing 'ahimsa'
after the Jallianwala Bagh incident seems like a joke. Who wouldn't
want to take up arms after this! Later, we also witness Gandhi's
irritation with Nehru for publicly endorsing Singh's views, as at that
point the latter's popularity appeared to be eclipsing his own.
This does give things a rather one-dimensional perspective, but within
this context effort has been made to present these happenings with
nuance. I liked the way the defiant, 'Inquilaab Zindabad'-proclaiming
bravado of Singh and his comrades in front of the jailers who read out
the death sentence is slowly tempered with tinges of sadness as other
friends start weeping. Even the Brits aren't portrayed as the typical
moustache-twirling twits, but as people who scheme and think quite
clearly.
For all its history-preserving motives, the canny 'Legend…'
knows its audience well enough to cut to a shot of a crying baby
amidst a stampede and dovetail a scene of Singh's sentencing with one
showing his mother's and fiancée's tearful response. It also knows
that the portrayal of Singh and his colleagues as a bunch of rowdy
youths (reminding you of films like 'Arjun'), opposing the upper-crust
English and effectively spouting Brit-baiting rhetoric, will rouse a
root-for-the-home-team emotion in you.
Even if you find yourself immune to all this, the songs and their
picturisation will surely get you. As in 'Lagaan', AR Rahman
simultaneously makes you shake your head at the anachronistic
arrangements ('Pagdi Sambhal Jatta' sounds like a Daler Mehndi
bhangra-pop item!) and exult in the exquisite, lush melodies. As Singh
gives voice to stirring, age-old lyrics like 'Sarfaroshi ki tamanna ab
hamaare dil mein hain, dekhna hai zor kitna bazuen kaatil mein hain',
you see the cannot-be-broken resolve and pride on the faces of his
comrades amidst all the pain and torture of prison life. Anyone who
questions the place or power of musical numbers in our cinema should
be made to watch these images that genuinely speak with the might of a
thousand words.
In using these songs to create mood, in showing ancient
'Chandralekha'-era tricks like Azad disguising himself as an 'Alak
Niranjan' sadhu to fool the Brits, in employing melodramatic devices
like Singh's gripping the head of a spear and bleeding after a
proclamation of 'yeh sangharsh khoon maangta hai', Santoshi clearly
goes for mass appeal, making glorious, unapologetic use of our
cinematic vocabulary. The result is audience manipulation at its most
effective and, truly, Santoshi's finest hour.
The Rating
Like 'Asoka', this 'masala' version of true-life events will surely
offend purists. If you want the unvarnished truth, dig out old
newspapers or go read a book. But if you want invigorating cinema made
with passion and care, cinema that makes our history incredibly
exhilarating, tremendously moving and relevant to this age, don't miss
'The Legend of Bhagat Singh'.
Vishal
"Urmi" <gar...@Ihatespam.com> wrote in message
news:zx5g9.8105$yt3.4...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
> No no no, Byomkesh Bakshi was created by Saradindu Bandopadhyay a rather
> famous Bengali author writing in the 1925 - 1960 period, i.e. much much
> before Ray wrote Feluda. The other interesting thing is that Bandopadhyay
> spent quite a lot of time in Bombay / Pune and wrote scripts for movies
for
> some time.
>
> He is remembered for his Byomkesh Bakshi books and also excellent
historical
> novels and short stories. He wrote a Bengali version of Anthony Hope's
> 'Prisoner of Zenda' called 'Jhinder Bandi' which was made into a movie
> starring Uttam Kumar. Soumitra Chatterjee (i.e. Feluda in the two Ray
movies
> based on Feluda novels - Joy Baba Felunath & Sonar kella) played one of
his
> rare negative roles in it!!
you are absolutely right. Actually, Vyomkesh bakshi was modelled on Sherlock
Holmes, but was actually created by Saradindu Bandopadhyay. Here is a link
to the book on amazon. Vyomkesh solved mysteries beautifully in Indian
context.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140287108/qid=1031868265/sr=8
-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-0476056-7690319?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
- Vishal
Ritu
Oops! That one really fell flat Balaji :-). I feel quite silly.
However would someone tell me what thread it was? Yes, like most
people I don't even bother to open the threads if I see Dr Jai
Maharaj's name. Even though I don't have the kill-file facility when
posting through Google.
Cheers
Ritu
cricfan
"Ritu" <rc0...@rediffmail.com> wrote in message
news:8777cccd.02091...@posting.google.com...
>
> Talking of Vyomkesh Bakshi, I had a question. Was it by any chance
> based on Satyajit Ray's Feluda? I've been reading that off and on and
> I feel maybe it was though I don't remember much of the serial. Does
> anyone remember?
>
> - Ritu
I saw him stepping in for someone else in the play "I'm not Bajirao" in 2000
in a theatre in Mumbai. He acted as a "goonda" who eats Pan Parag all the
time. His
role demanded that he spat a lot while threatening Boman Irani and Sudhir
Joshi.
This earns him the sobriquet "Thook master" from Boman Irani. Brilliant
stuff. Who would've thought that he could play a goonda?
The play was based on Neil Simon's "Rappoport".
The regular cast member was ill and Kapur substituted for him.
Cheers
Arun
Ritu
Thanks Urmi and Vishal for the insight. I did a small search for
Saradindu Bandopadhyay (Bannerjee) on IMDB and got the following
results
Azad(1940)
Durga(1939)
Kangan(1939)- Where he shares writing credits with S (Sasadhar?)
Mukherjee, Gajendra Kumar Mitra and Narottam Vyas (Imagine 4 people
writing a film together!.. maybe that's why Kangan was such a hit)
Navjeevan (1939)
Apparently, he did most of his film writing in the year 1939!. The
director for most of these films is Franz Osten indicating that they
are Bombay Talkies films. He was the key director for Bombay Talkies
for quite a while. (On the side, I wonder how there was such a strong
German presence in Bombay Talkies in that period. Esp seeing the
antoganism b/w the British and the German during the WW days one would
think that we wouldn't see many Germans in India. Any theories?)
Coming back, Sardindu Bandopadhyay is also credited for a film called
'Chiriyakhana'(1967) which is a bangla adaptation of Vyomkesh Bakshi
by Satyajit Ray. Ray shares the writing credits with him and Uttam
Kumar plays Vyomkesh Bakshi.
Infact this could lead to the question on whether it was Feluda that
was inspired by Vyomkesh Bakshi? Considering Ray made a film on him as
well.. What do people who have read both the series say?
Cheers
Ritu
Ritu
> rc0...@rediffmail.com says...
>
> >Yes, Aamir khan generally is great in terms of body language, getup
> >etc. He was fantastic in Sarfarosh.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Aamir is good, but for only limited roles like
> Aati hai kya khandala type.
I think if I were to choose one Aamir Khan film it would be Sarfarosh.
He has naunced the role very well and beautifully underplayed it. And
Sarfarosh is definitely not the 'Aati kya Khandala' kind of role.
Aamir is good. Though I like Ajay Devgun more.
Ritu
> For what it's worth, this was my take on the film when it came out:
>
> 'The Legend of Bhagat Singh'
> http://www.sitagita.com/article.asp?cyberspace=36-10-0-0&leafId=7950
>
> The Plot
<Part review snipped>
Great review Baradwaj!
>
> Even if you find yourself immune to all this, the songs and their
> picturisation will surely get you. As in 'Lagaan', AR Rahman
> simultaneously makes you shake your head at the anachronistic
> arrangements ('Pagdi Sambhal Jatta' sounds like a Daler Mehndi
> bhangra-pop item!)
So you agree !!! I couldn't have put it better myself. But as some
Daler Mehndi loving friends of mine told me when I asked them more
about Punjabi Folk music.. these days Daler Mehndi is Punjabi Folk!
Like it or leave it. An average Punjabi no longer listens to Surinder
Kaur and 'laththe di chaadar'. So I guess the 'Pagadi Sambhal Jatta'
is actually what ARR must have thought to be genuine Panju Folk :-)!!
Cheers
Ritu
Alok
> "Balaji Murthy" <bmu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<alqti3$s...@news.or.intel.com>...
>>
>> people didn't follow the other (rightfully ignorable) thread I was involved.
>
> Oops! That one really fell flat Balaji :-). I feel quite silly.
> However would someone tell me what thread it was? Yes, like most
> people I don't even bother to open the threads if I see Dr Jai
> Maharaj's name. Even though I don't have the kill-file facility when
> posting through Google.
I feel stupider. <boo hoo hoo>
-Alok
--
How doth the little crocodile improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile On every golden scale!
How cheerfully he seems to grin, how neatly spreads his claws,
And welcomes little fishes in, with gently smiling jaws!
Shishir Yerramilli
>
> >Yes, Aamir khan generally is great in terms of body language, getup
> >etc. He was fantastic in Sarfarosh.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> except in the climax where he had to explain the pain of
> parition and all hindu-muslim problem. He fell flat in
> that scene. His limitation as an actor was exposed quite
> brutally.
> Aamir is good, but for only limited roles like
> Aati hai kya khandala type.
Not neccesarily.He was quite good in 'Raakh' but in general he is
not as good as people make him out to be.
> rk-
> ps: of course he is any day better than sha sha shahrukh khan.
Goes without saying!
Balaji A.S. Murthy
says...
>> >
>> > It is neither 'ahinsaa' or 'ahimsa' as you should know!I dont know
>> > how to express the correct sound in Roman script.
>> >
>>
>> I'm gratified that so many people followed this thread. Which implies that
>> people didn't follow the other (rightfully ignorable) thread I was involved.
>>
>> - Balaji
>
>They probably couldn't get your sarcasm 'cause the idiot Jyotish Maharaj is in
>most peoples' kill-file. Only because you responded to his post, I could read
>what that thread was all about.
>
>Anyway, I think we should use Gaandhi or Gandhee instead of Gandhi, as Gandhi
>can also be a slur (as in Gandhi harkath)
Sanjeev,
Thanks for clarifying to the rest of the group. Actually, my primary audience
was you. You had after all posted on similar lines to mine in response to Jai
Maharaj.
And I had happened to open that thread mainly because it had a post by a
Karthik, who I mistakenly thought was the Karthik of web on Indian plagiarism.
That Ritu, Alok et al chose to respond to me seriously was amusing :).
- Balaji
shalu
> Apparently, he did most of his film writing in the year 1939!. The
> director for most of these films is Franz Osten indicating that they
> are Bombay Talkies films. He was the key director for Bombay Talkies
> for quite a while. (On the side, I wonder how there was such a strong
> German presence in Bombay Talkies in that period. Esp seeing the
> antoganism b/w the British and the German during the WW days one would
> think that we wouldn't see many Germans in India. Any theories?)
Theory? ahem! Here I go :-)
But this time I will do a bit of google to check if I am right.
German presence in Bombay Talkies can be seen only upto the onset of
second WW not after that. But let's start from how that presence came.
Himanshu Rai was in London in early 1920s being trained as a lawyer when
he also took to acting in plays there. It was a natural extension
therefore when he decided to make a movie. For the movie
The Light Of Asia (1925) he partnered with a German producer
Peter Ostermayer and director was Ostermayer's brother Franz Osten. Rai
continued to make movies with German collaboration till 1933 when he
was forced to return to India with a newly-wed wife, i.e. Devika Rani.
Rai brought many German technicians along including Osten.
By 1934 Rai had his own studio Bombay Talkies up and running.
Franz Osten directed all the Bombay Talkies' movies in 1930s but
could not complete Kangan (1939). The film was still under production
when Britain declared war on Germany and all the foreign technicians
including director, Franz Osten were detained as prisoners of war. The
film was finally completely by Osten's two assistants, N R Acharya
and Najam Naqvi.
sources:
http://www.upperstall.com/people/rai.html
http://cinemaa.indya.com/cinemaa/yester_yearsbombaytalk.html
The second link actually doesn't work. It is cached by google at
http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:rClkfo5cVMIC:cinemaa.indya.com/cinemaa/yester_yearsbombaytalk.html
- Shalu