The movie Lagaan from a cricketing perspective.
Manoj
Thinking from another perspective, are there some inaccuracies in the movie?
My knowledge of cricket history is nearly zero, so I'll post my questions here.
The movie is set somewhere in the very late 1800's and is between Englishmen
and Indian and almost takes on the form of a war.
1) The game is being with 3 stumps and 2 bails at each end. Was this the
norm at that time?
2) An appeal is made for leg before wicket during the match. Was the lbw
rule in vogue?
3) A player is given out after being hit on the head by a bouncer and falling
unconscious onto the stumps. I always thought you could not be given out
hit wicket if it was the result of an injury. I may be wrong, too.
4) There is an interesting situation in the game where the Indians bring in
a bowler who has a peculiar action. He standing in the bowling crease
and keeps on rotating his arm (more than once, 5 or 6 times) before
releasing the ball. The Englishmen were not able to predict when he would
release the ball so they couldn;t play him. Finally they complained to
the umpires, who after much discussion (and of course, after the
intervention of the beautiful heroine) comes to the conclusion that there
is no law preventing him from bowling any way he likes. Is there, now?
5) On the last ball of the penultimate over of the match, the captain wants
to keep strike so the batsmen decide to go for a single. He pushes the
ball and takes off. But the fielder, in order to prevent him from keeping
the strike, deliberately kicks the ball towards the boundary. The batsmen
complete the single before the ball crosses the boundary. The umpire gives
a boundary and the strike goes to the non-striker. But wouldn't this have
been 5 runs and wouldn't the captain still kept the strike?
Ron Knight
>
> Recently saw the movie Lagaan. There is about 2 hrs of cricket in the movie.
> Thinking from another perspective, are there some inaccuracies in the movie?
> My knowledge of cricket history is nearly zero, so I'll post my questions here.
>
> The movie is set somewhere in the very late 1800's and is between Englishmen
> and Indian and almost takes on the form of a war.
>
> 1) The game is being with 3 stumps and 2 bails at each end. Was this the
> norm at that time?
Pretty sure that was the case then, but I don't have my reference with
me. The days of two stumps and one bail are pretty far back.
However, before the 1930s the wicket was eight inches wide instead of
nine; if the filmmakers used a modern set of stumps and bails that
would be a minor inaccuracy. (If it says "Red Stripe" on the stumps
that would be a major inaccuracy.)
> 2) An appeal is made for leg before wicket during the match. Was the lbw
> rule in vogue?
According to Don Oslear's _Wisden: The Laws of Cricket_, "The origins
of the LBW law are slightly hazy but it is said that even in the laws
of 1744 an umpire was allowed to adjudicate on a batsman 'standing
unfair to strike'. It was in the code of 1774 that a law was
introduced whereby an umpire could give the striker out should he 'put
his leg before the wicket with a design to stop the ball and actually
prevent the ball hitting the wicket by it'. Note the use of the word
'leg' rather than 'person', which came later. From 1788 to 1937 there
were various wordings in regard to the position of the pitching of the
ball for an LBW appeal to be upheld. In the main they were that the
ball must have pitched in a straight line between wicket and wicket.
It was not until 1937 that a ball that pitched on the off side of a
striker's wicket could produce a successful appeal, provided that the
part of the striker's person which was hit was between wicket and
wicket."
> 3) A player is given out after being hit on the head by a bouncer and falling
> unconscious onto the stumps. I always thought you could not be given out
> hit wicket if it was the result of an injury. I may be wrong, too.
There is no such exemption in the Laws now, although the umpire might
call the ball dead as soon as the striker is hit in the head. I doubt
there was any such exemption in the 1890s, and probably nothing in the
Laws about calling the ball dead after an injury, either. Men were
men, then, and didn't let a little thing like being knocked
unconscious keep them from playing cricket.
> 4) There is an interesting situation in the game where the Indians bring in
> a bowler who has a peculiar action. He standing in the bowling crease
> and keeps on rotating his arm (more than once, 5 or 6 times) before
> releasing the ball. The Englishmen were not able to predict when he would
> release the ball so they couldn;t play him. Finally they complained to
> the umpires, who after much discussion (and of course, after the
> intervention of the beautiful heroine) comes to the conclusion that there
> is no law preventing him from bowling any way he likes. Is there, now?
Even in the absence of any Law to the contrary, the umpires nowadays
have complete power to stop any practice they deem to be unfair.
Don't know if the Laws explicitly gave them that power in the 1890s,
but probably custom did. This would certainly strike me as unfair.
However, I wouldn't need to rely on that now because Law 23.3(b)(viii)
instructs me as umpire to call and signal "dead ball" if the ball does
not leave the bowler's hand for any reason, except in an attempt to
run out the non-striker before entering the delivery stride. The
interpretation of this Law is that once the delivery stride is entered
and/or the delivery swing made with the arm one time, the umpire calls
and signals "dead ball" if the ball is not released.
Take it easy,
Ron Knight
Ron Knight
response.
Manoj wrote:
> 5) On the last ball of the penultimate over of the match, the captain wants
> to keep strike so the batsmen decide to go for a single. He pushes the
> ball and takes off. But the fielder, in order to prevent him from keeping
> the strike, deliberately kicks the ball towards the boundary. The batsmen
> complete the single before the ball crosses the boundary. The umpire gives
> a boundary and the strike goes to the non-striker. But wouldn't this have
> been 5 runs and wouldn't the captain still kept the strike?
I have actually seen this happen, although at the time I was a
spectator at the exact spot on the boundary where the ball was kicked
across, rather than the umpire. In the case I saw, as in the movie,
the umpire didn't spot the deliberate kick and four runs only were
awarded and the strike didn't change. I talked with the umpire after
the match in the instance I saw; he said he saw no evidence from the
center of the field that the kick was deliberate, which is fair
enough. But if he had been standing where I was standing and had seen
the gleeful look on the face of the fielder he would have known
different.
Point being that you are right about the Law, but the umpire has to be
pretty certain the kick was deliberate before penalizing the fielding
side in this way. He has to give some consideration to the
possibility that the fielder fairly muffed the play. But if he rules
a deliberate act by the fielder, it's treated exactly like an
overthrow, and the batsmen don't actually have to complete the single,
just cross before the kick, for 5 runs to be awarded and for the
batsmen to change ends.
However, if the fielder deliberately allows the ball to go over the
boundary without touching it, although he would have been able to stop
it, that is simply a normal boundary, no unfair play or penalty.
Mad Hamish
wrote:
>> 3) A player is given out after being hit on the head by a bouncer and falling
>> unconscious onto the stumps. I always thought you could not be given out
>> hit wicket if it was the result of an injury. I may be wrong, too.
>
>There is no such exemption in the Laws now, although the umpire might
>call the ball dead as soon as the striker is hit in the head. I doubt
>there was any such exemption in the 1890s, and probably nothing in the
>Laws about calling the ball dead after an injury, either. Men were
>men, then, and didn't let a little thing like being knocked
>unconscious keep them from playing cricket.
>
as late as the 1980s Tavare used to be knocked unconcious just before
he went to the crease. It's the only way to explain his batting...
swaraj
> Ron Knight
Interesting observations. Now I have a few questions on the same
movie, I wanted to post long time back. The movie is one of the best I
have seen, but still some cricketing querries I could make.
1. To the best of my knowledge, till sometime in 1960s, the over used
to be of 8 balls. However in this movie (the year in themovie is 1893,
if it helps), the over consists of 6 deliveries only. Howcome?
2. The rule regarding runner: I believe, only a player, who is already
out can only come in as a runner for the batsman. However, in this
movie, we see a kid, who is not there even in the playing 11, coming
in as a runner. Gimmick for emotional appeal?
3. The match was of 1 innings each lasting for 3 days, with stakes
very high for both the teams. The villagers' team captain was
desparate to get the winning runs in the last ball, as if they lose,
they need to pay three times the tax to the Britishers. What if he had
remained unbeaten? The match would have been a draw, right? But the
expression and the way everything has been portrayed, it seems as if
they would still have lost the match, had they not scored the winning
runs. Remember, they were not all-out till the end.
BTW, this is one of the best movies I have watched in recent times.
Reg
Swaraj
Ron Knight
>
> Interesting observations. Now I have a few questions on the same
> movie, I wanted to post long time back. The movie is one of the best I
> have seen, but still some cricketing querries I could make.
>
> 1. To the best of my knowledge, till sometime in 1960s, the over used
> to be of 8 balls. However in this movie (the year in themovie is 1893,
> if it helps), the over consists of 6 deliveries only. Howcome?
I gotta see this movie.
Our revered Aslam Siddiqui published a history of the length of an
over in May 1998 that I found interesting enough to save. Here it is:
In ENGLAND:
4 1880 to 1888
5 1890 to 1899
6 1902 to 1938
8 1939
6 1946 to date
In AUSTRALIA:
4 1876-77 to 1887-88
6 1891-92 to 1920-21
8 1924-25
6 1928-29 to 1932-33
8 1936-37 to 1978-79
6 1979-80 to date
In SOUTH AFRICA:
4 1888-89
5 1891-92 to 1898-99
6 1902-03 to 1935-36
8 1938-39 to 1957-58
6 1961-62 to date
In WEST INDIES:
6 1929-30 to date
In NEW ZEALAND:
6 1929-30 to 1967-68
8 1968-69 to 1978-79
6 1979-80 to date
In INDIA:
6 1933-34 to date
In PAKISTAN:
6 1954-55 to 1972-73
8 1974-75 to 1977-78
6 1978-79 to date
In SRI LANKA:
6 1981-82 to date
In ZIMBABWE:
6 1992-93 to date
Thanks, Aslam. According to Don Oslear, "The first code of laws only
allowed for an over to consist of four balls. That was in 1744 and it
remained thus for 145 years until 1889, when the number was increased
to five. The next change was much swifter, 11 years to be exact. On
May 2, 1900 MCC decreed that the number of deliveries be increased to
six per over. Then, in the 1947 code, latitude was given for an over
to be of either six or eight deliveries, as prescribed by the league
or competition in which matches were being played. This was simply to
accommodate the desires of Australia and New Zealand. Eight-ball
overs were also bowled in South Africa for their Currie Cup matches in
the 1937-38 seasen and the MCC tour matches in that country in the
1938-39 season. In England in 1939 a trial was given to eight-ball
overs in all first-class matches and this was extended to the England
v West Indies Test series that season."
Oslear's words are based mostly on changes in the official Laws of
Cricket; you can see from Aslam's list that there is not perfect
agreement between the list and what Oslear says. Now the Laws of
Cricket specify 6 balls an over. Of course special regulations can
modify this for a particular match, now as in 1893, so it is useless
to say that any number of balls was "wrong" for this movie match: the
pre-match agreement could fix the number of balls. However, it seems
that if the match had been played either according to the Laws of
Cricket or the prevailing custom in England at the time, the number of
balls per over in this match would have been five.
> 2. The rule regarding runner: I believe, only a player, who is already
> out can only come in as a runner for the batsman. However, in this
> movie, we see a kid, who is not there even in the playing 11, coming
> in as a runner. Gimmick for emotional appeal?
The Laws regarding substitutes and runners have changed considerably
over the years, and I have no idea what the relevant Law would have
been in 1893. Certainly now you are correct: this is not a legal
runner according to current Law. The runner must now be a member of
the 11, although he is required to have already been out only if this
is possible. (That is, a runner for one of the opening pair obviously
could not already have been out, and there are other conceivable
circumstances--all previous batsmen having been injured, for
example--when the umpire would allow a member of the 11 who had not
yet batted to be a runner. Under these circumstances the general rule
is that the batsman should be from as far down the order as possible,
in order to avoid changing runners if possible. It is also considered
unfair to have the next batsman be the runner, because in that way he
would get a look at the bowling immediately before batting.)
> 3. The match was of 1 innings each lasting for 3 days, with stakes
> very high for both the teams. The villagers' team captain was
> desparate to get the winning runs in the last ball, as if they lose,
> they need to pay three times the tax to the Britishers. What if he had
> remained unbeaten? The match would have been a draw, right? But the
> expression and the way everything has been portrayed, it seems as if
> they would still have lost the match, had they not scored the winning
> runs. Remember, they were not all-out till the end.
If you are ever in the position of making a bet on a sporting event,
be sure that the dividing-line event is covered. The conditions of
the bet should have made it clear whether the match had to be won or
simply not lost. Perhaps someone else who has seen the movie can
satisfy us as to whether the scriptwriters were careful on this point.
swaraj
>
> > 3. The match was of 1 innings each lasting for 3 days, with stakes
> > very high for both the teams. The villagers' team captain was
> > desparate to get the winning runs in the last ball, as if they lose,
> > they need to pay three times the tax to the Britishers. What if he had
> > remained unbeaten? The match would have been a draw, right? But the
> > expression and the way everything has been portrayed, it seems as if
> > they would still have lost the match, had they not scored the winning
> > runs. Remember, they were not all-out till the end.
>
> If you are ever in the position of making a bet on a sporting event,
> be sure that the dividing-line event is covered. The conditions of
> the bet should have made it clear whether the match had to be won or
> simply not lost. Perhaps someone else who has seen the movie can
> satisfy us as to whether the scriptwriters were careful on this point.
>
> Take it easy,
> Ron Knight
Thanks for the detailed account Ron. Well, I have already seen this 3
hr 42 min long movie 5 times and could never get the clarification on
the dividing line... May be someone can point out if I have missed it.
BTW, luckily (or rather as the script was written), the Britishers got
out around the middle of the play, i.e. lunch time of day-2. What if
they had batted out well into Day-3? They looked pretty comfortable at
282/3 before they got out at 320.
Trying to take it easy!! :-)
Swaraj
Sreeram
>
>Point being that you are right about the Law, but the umpire has to be
>pretty certain the kick was deliberate before penalizing the fielding
>side in this way. He has to give some consideration to the
>possibility that the fielder fairly muffed the play. But if he rules
>a deliberate act by the fielder, it's treated exactly like an
>overthrow, and the batsmen don't actually have to complete the single,
>just cross before the kick, for 5 runs to be awarded and for the
>batsmen to change ends.
>
>However, if the fielder deliberately allows the ball to go over the
>boundary without touching it, although he would have been able to stop
>it, that is simply a normal boundary, no unfair play or penalty.
>
Gerald Brodribb in 'Next Man In' describes an incident in the 1921
Ashes when Warwick Armstrong kicked the ball over the boundary when
he saw the batsmen starting out for a fifth run, and thereby converted
it into a four. He mentions that there were no legislations at the
time to prevent such 'mean tricks'.
However according to the same source, at Lord's 1938, when Bill Brown
tried to take a single off the last ball of an over to retain the
strike, Hutton kicked the ball over the boundary. But the umpires
Chester and Walden after consulting gave Brown five runs.
So perhaps the rule was added about this time, and 'Lagaan' was
correct ?
Sreeram.
Ron Knight
Sreeram wrote:
> Ron,
> Gerald Brodribb in 'Next Man In' describes an incident in the 1921
> Ashes when Warwick Armstrong kicked the ball over the boundary when
> he saw the batsmen starting out for a fifth run, and thereby converted
> it into a four. He mentions that there were no legislations at the
> time to prevent such 'mean tricks'.
>
> However according to the same source, at Lord's 1938, when Bill Brown
> tried to take a single off the last ball of an over to retain the
> strike, Hutton kicked the ball over the boundary. But the umpires
> Chester and Walden after consulting gave Brown five runs.
>
> So perhaps the rule was added about this time, and 'Lagaan' was
> correct ?
I went home and read my _Next Man In_ before responding to your post.
What I gather from reading the account of the 1938 incident is that
the rule wasn't in effect in 1938 either, but Chester and Walden used
their umpiring powers to judge unfair play, determined that the kick
was unfair play, and applied an appropriate remedy. If they were
doing this in the absence of supporting Law, one might argue that this
last step (awarding the four) was beyond their powers, and that the
Laws gave them power only to consider the ball dead, and therefore one
run scored, at the instant of the unfair kick.
Frank Chester was quite courageous about using his powers to determine
fair and unfair play. It was he who brought about the Law disallowing
runs after an illegal deflection (called "disallowed leg-byes" for
short). He didn't do this by applying to the MCC to amend the Laws;
he did it by intervening in a match when he determined that attempting
to score runs by deliberate deflection off the pads was unfair.
Afterwards his decision was upheld by the MCC and then written into
the Laws. I wouldn't at all be surprised if this 1938 instance was
another example of Chester's legislating on the field, only later
ratified by being put into the Laws.
Again I will note that I haven't seen _Lagaan_. Often in sports
movies of this sort when the underdog triumphs over the brutish
opposition the scriptwriters add further opposition to stack the deck
against them, usually in the form of blatant cheating by the opposing
side and/or crooked officials. Is this present in _Lagaan_, or is the
story that the match was fair but the Indians were highly overmatched
and prevailed anyway? If the umpires were being fair, it would not
have been entirely out of line for them to disallow the kick over the
boundary under their powers to penalize unfair play, even though there
may have been no specific Law to that effect in 1893.
Ian Diddams
>
>Recently saw the movie Lagaan. There is about 2 hrs of cricket in the movie.
Blimey!! How long is the enttire film then?!!
>1) The game is being with 3 stumps and 2 bails at each end. Was this the
> norm at that time?
I would have thought so. The middle stump appeared a l-o-n-g time ago.
>2) An appeal is made for leg before wicket during the match. Was the lbw
> rule in vogue?
Again, I would have thought it appeared a long time ago... it couldn't have
taken cricketers of yore very long to realise the legs would prevent a ball from
hitting the stumps and thus preventing a "bowled".
>3) A player is given out after being hit on the head by a bouncer and falling
> unconscious onto the stumps. I always thought you could not be given out
> hit wicket if it was the result of an injury. I may be wrong, too.
I've not heard of the "result of an injury" thing, and the hit-wicket law
doesn't mention it, but given that the breaking of the wicket must occur as a
result of playing the shot or setting off for the run, I suppose if in the
opinion of the umpire the batter never cattempted to play the ball and just got
skulled etc then I could see the claim that it was not hit-wicket. My guess is
that such a descision is unlikely.
>4) There is an interesting situation in the game where the Indians bring in
> a bowler who has a peculiar action. He standing in the bowling crease
> and keeps on rotating his arm (more than once, 5 or 6 times) before
> releasing the ball. The Englishmen were not able to predict when he would
> release the ball so they couldn;t play him. Finally they complained to
> the umpires, who after much discussion (and of course, after the
> intervention of the beautiful heroine) comes to the conclusion that there
> is no law preventing him from bowling any way he likes. Is there, now?
Nope. As long as he ain't a chucker!!
>5) On the last ball of the penultimate over of the match, the captain wants
> to keep strike so the batsmen decide to go for a single. He pushes the
> ball and takes off. But the fielder, in order to prevent him from keeping
> the strike, deliberately kicks the ball towards the boundary. The batsmen
> complete the single before the ball crosses the boundary. The umpire gives
> a boundary and the strike goes to the non-striker. But wouldn't this have
> been 5 runs and wouldn't the captain still kept the strike?
Yes.
Didds
Ian Diddams
>
>as late as the 1980s Tavare used to be knocked unconcious just before
>he went to the crease. It's the only way to explain his batting...
<pedant>
. that and the orders he was given by management when playing for England.
The results of which were then used to drop him.
Stramge how such an alleged slow batter scored so many Sunday afternoon tons for
his county (different instructions) innit?
</pedant>
Didds
Amol Cricketwallah
> The prions in the brain of Manoj awoke and formed the following ideas....
> >
> >Recently saw the movie Lagaan. There is about 2 hrs of cricket in the movie.
>
> Blimey!! How long is the enttire film then?!!
>
Three hours, fifty minutes - and that's not counting the "interval"
approximately half-way through it :-) A solid 4-hours, basically.
And yes, the word "interminable" does come to mind on a few occasions ;-)
Sadiq [ who took 3 "out of theatre walkabout" breaks in all ] Yusuf
Augustus Fink-Nottle
I've got to see this movie someday. Although I hope there aren't any of those
dreadful song and dance numbers which tend to infest Indian movies. It'd be a
shame to see some gel prancing around trees singing love songs at a cruical
stage of the match when she ought to be sitting in the stands, eating
cucumber sandwiches punctuated by the occasional "well played, sir" or, if
you'll pardon my language, "whatta shot".
pip-pip,
Gussie
p.s. Don't tell Condon, but I believe the match in this movie was fixed.
Gafoor
harish shah says...
>Hmm. Seems to me you've been consistently critical of the movie. I didn't
>think it was as bad as you make it out to be.
Agreed.
> Yes, it was nowhere near
>as good as the likes of Pritish Nandy made it out to be.
Agreed.
> And it was
>nowhere near being amongst the greatest Hindi films of all time, IMHO.
Agreed.
>But, it wasn't a bad movie at all, even given that it was overly dramatic,
>a 4-hour alpha male fantasy and way too politically correct. (Minorities
>all contributing, British heroine remaining the hero's "Radha" forever
>after, etc.) Given the slump in the quality of Hindi movies prior to its
>release - movies flopping left-right-center - it wasn't that bad.
This I don't fully agree. Maybe movies did flop left, right & center
but this wasn't the best movie made in the last few years.
I found movies like Takshak, Zakhm, Hu Tu Tu, Satya, Ghulam etc
to be much more entertaining than Lagaan.
I do agree that this movie isn't boring. However it wasn't a special
movie. I think it was a superhit because of excellent marketing &
the cricket thingy. IMHO, it should have ended up as a hit, but not as
a super-duper hit it turned out to be.
OTOH, I found Lagaan to be better than all other movies released after it
i.e. all movies released after Lagaan have been much worse than it.
I found even the highly hyped 'Dil Chaahta Hai" to be very average.
samarth harish shah
Hmm. Seems to me you've been consistently critical of the movie. I didn't
think it was as bad as you make it out to be. Yes, it was nowhere near
as good as the likes of Pritish Nandy made it out to be. And it was
nowhere near being amongst the greatest Hindi films of all time, IMHO.
But, it wasn't a bad movie at all, even given that it was overly dramatic,
a 4-hour alpha male fantasy and way too politically correct. (Minorities
all contributing, British heroine remaining the hero's "Radha" forever
after, etc.) Given the slump in the quality of Hindi movies prior to its
release - movies flopping left-right-center - it wasn't that bad.
Anyways, the reason I didn't care much abt your previous criticisms but
decided to respond to this one is this: For all its other flaws, the movie
is anything *but* dreary or interminable or boring enough to prompt
out-of-theater walkabouts. One of the critics pointed out that the biggest
achievement of the movie is that it actually keeps the viewer in the seat
for 4 hours. Not the story-line or the acting or the sets or anything. The
fact that this 4 hour film actually holds the viewer's attention for its
entire duration is achievement enough, forget all its other (supposed)
merits.
It's all a matter of personal opinion, of course, but I do think that your
opinion abt the movie being dreary/boring is in the microscopic minority.
-Samarth.
Andrew Dunford
"samarth harish shah" <shs...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.31.010925...@ux11.cso.uiuc.edu...
Well I read Sadiq's 'criticism', then I read yours. I'd say you have just
criticised the movie significantly more than he did.
It sounds like the average ODI innings, which I certainly wouldn't survive
without several trips to the bar (or, for our readers in England, one trip
to the bar, in whose queue I'd still be when the innings finished).
Andrew
samarth harish shah
A fairly balanced 12-line post abt the movie is likely to contain more
critical comments than a biased, one-eyed 3-line post. I suggest you read
all of Sadiq's posts in the past abt the movie, watch the movie itself and
then come to a conclusion.
-Samarth.
samarth harish shah
<snip>
> I found movies like Takshak, Zakhm, Hu Tu Tu, Satya, Ghulam etc
> to be much more entertaining than Lagaan.
Of the above, I've only seen Satya and I agree it's head and shoulders
above Lagaan. Satya was a cult movie. An amazingly well-taken movie. But
it isn't recent or anything - it was released in 1998, a full 3 years
before Lagaan! Ghulam was also released in '98, I think. (Well, I already
had 'Aati Kya Khandala' in my collection when I first came to the US. :-))
Maybe it's just me, though, who classifies all pre-my-coming-to-America
events as "not recent" or "old". :-)
-Samarth.
R. Bharat Rao
> Of the above, I've only seen Satya and I agree it's head and shoulders
> above Lagaan. Satya was a cult movie. An amazingly well-taken movie. But
> it isn't recent or anything - it was released in 1998, a full 3 years
> before Lagaan! Ghulam was also released in '98, I think. (Well, I already
Still catching up these "modern" films -- saw Ghulam tonight & have
Sathya waiting for tomorrow nite (G was pretty darned good, so if
S is better, I'll really enjoy it)...
> had 'Aati Kya Khandala' in my collection when I first came to the US. :-))
> Maybe it's just me, though, who classifies all pre-my-coming-to-America
> events as "not recent" or "old". :-)
Know exactly what you mean! In my mind, "Amar Akbar Anthony"
"Muqaddar ka Sikandar" and "Ardh Satya" are "not recent", whereas
even "Tezaab" and "1942 ALS" fall into the "modern" category...
However, unlike you, "old" corresponds to movies before "Bobby" --
or more roughly Suraiya or Asha Parekh prancing around a lamp-post.
ObCricket: Jadeja is apparantly going to be acting in some movie --
though going by previous cricket thespians (Sandeep Patil comes
to mind), it may not really be "acting"
Bharat
--
R. Bharat Rao
E-mail: rao_b...@yahoo-nospam-this.com (remove "-nospam-this")
In Monday's edition of USA Today, 49 percent of Americans polled
supported special IDs for Arabs, including U.S. citizens.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Andrew Dunford
I am grateful for your suggestion. At this point in time I have no plans to
adopt it as policy, but should the situation change I will bear it mind.
Andrew
Gafoor
Well I got a general impression from your post that Lagaan was better
than
most movies made in the last 4-5 years.
Generally in my mind, I think of movies made in the
90's as recent & before that as old (i.e. movies seen when I was
studying
& movies seen after I started working)
Baap
>I found movies like Takshak, Zakhm, Hu Tu Tu, Satya, Ghulam etc
>to be much more entertaining than Lagaan.
You mean to say that Hu Tu Tu was more entertaining than Lagaan???
Agreed it was a different movie but entertaining??? Aren't you the
same guy who speaks loads about Govinda and his entertainers in Ramli???
Surely you must know what entertainment is,right!!!
>I do agree that this movie isn't boring. However it wasn't a special
>movie. I think it was a superhit because of excellent marketing &
>the cricket thingy.
It was a superhit only in select centres like Mumbai and some South Indian
cities. It was average and also a loser in many circuits. Only Gadar was
a universal hit in big and small centres. Similarly, Dil Chahta Hai is hit
only in Mumbai(which is understandeable given Mumbaiites fetish for anything
American-like) but a flop everywhere else. But still it is being counted as hit.
Nowadays the film raters have become pro-urban and discount the earnings in
smaller centres and towns. That is prejudice against certain sections of the
audience. Who said only city-slickers know which movie is good or not. Maybe
this phenomenon is a by-product of this new fetish for anything technically good
especially among the city audience ie. anything good in technical quality and an
average script will pass as good even though there may be nothing unique about
the movie.
Baap
Gafoor
>
> In article <DN8s7.5181$ev2....@www.newsranger.com>, Gafoor says...
>
> >I found movies like Takshak, Zakhm, Hu Tu Tu, Satya, Ghulam etc
> >to be much more entertaining than Lagaan.
>
> You mean to say that Hu Tu Tu was more entertaining than Lagaan???
For me, at least.
> Agreed it was a different movie but entertaining???
Who cares about different movies. I hate movies whose only
redeeming point is that they are different (i.e. Dil Chaahta Hai,
Astitva etc)
> Aren't you the same guy who speaks loads about Govinda and his
> entertainers in Ramli???
Yes. Unfortunately Govinda hasn't made any entertaining movies
recently so couldn't list them.
> Surely you must know what entertainment is,right!!!
No, only chutiyas who think that the monkey is a great actor would know
what
entertainment is.
Adam Lawrence
Cricketwallah) wrote:
For any UK fans who are Oxford-based or can get there, I noticed that
the Phoenix cinema is showing Lagaan this weekend.
(www.picturehouse-cinemas.co.uk)
Cheers
Adam
--
Adam Lawrence
adamml...@aol.com
Baap
>No, only chutiyas who think that the monkey is a great actor would know
>what
>entertainment is.
Oh Okay...so everyone should watch only Govinda movies and tune their mind to
thinking that "an energetic chimpanzee is not prancing around the streets of
Switzerland and Vienna with some pretty girl singing some senseless songs
and mouthing some inane dialogues thereby providing entertainment
to a 5th grade circus audience". Thanks for your wonderful compliment.
srkrishn...@mail.com
> It was a superhit only in select centres like Mumbai and some South
Indian
> cities. It was average and also a loser in many circuits. Only Gadar was
> a universal hit in big and small centres.
Small center - U mean Ahemdabad.
> Similarly, Dil Chahta Hai is hit
> only in Mumbai(which is understandeable given Mumbaiites fetish for
anything
> American-like) but a flop everywhere else. But still it is being counted
as hit.
> Nowadays the film raters have become pro-urban and discount the earnings
in
> smaller centres and towns.
Yo dingbat, who cares about Ahemdabad.
RK-
samarth harish shah
<snip>
> It was a superhit only in select centres like Mumbai and some South Indian
> cities. It was average and also a loser in many circuits. Only Gadar was
> a universal hit in big and small centres. Similarly, Dil Chahta Hai is hit
Dunno what you mean by "universal" hit, but IIRC Gadar didn't make much of
an impact in south India. It was the north Indian market which appreciated
it a lot because, I suppose, northern India was more directly affected by
the Indo-Pak war which is depicted in the movie.
-Samarth.
Tera Baap
>
>"an energetic chimpanzee is not prancing around the streets of
>Switzerland and Vienna
I saw some movie where some kids and a teacher were prancing around in a school
(gurukul) somewhere in UK. The kids were hardly seen studying, always romancing.
Must be those good for nothing students from apna desi MIT.
> with some pretty girl
Hey, reminds me, the teacher was prancing around with a dead girl! Sick!
> singing some senseless songs
Yeah, I remember those stupid and senseless songs going mohabattein,
mohabattein.
>and mouthing some inane dialogues
Amazing. Are we talking of the same movie? I remember some inane monologue
mouthed by a monkey talking of the virtues of mohabattein.
> thereby providing entertainment
>to a 5th grade circus audience".
I wasnt entertained. But I believe you were. I remember you mentioning it. I
havent seen a better evaluation of an individual by himself. You really are a
5th grade circus audience. Your down to earthness, Shridhar, blows me away!
> Thanks for your wonderful compliment.
You are most welcome.
Baap
Asha Parekh
says...
>However, unlike you, "old" corresponds to movies before "Bobby" --
>or more roughly Suraiya or Asha Parekh prancing around a lamp-post.
Mere pyaare Bharat,
I am so glad to see you mention my name. I have been so obsessed with you that I
didnt even get married. I am still waiting for you dear.
Both of us are hypocrites and would get along very well. When I was an actress I
used to prance around a lamp post shaking my big butt. But now in Censor board I
chop any shaking of booties. We both will get along very well, our inherent
hypocrisy will see us through.
Yours lovingly,
Asha
yeskay
>
> Mere pyaare Bharat,
>
> I am so glad to see you mention my name. I have been so obsessed with
> you that I didnt even get married. I am still waiting for you dear.
>
> Both of us are hypocrites and would get along very well. When I was an
> actress I used to prance around a lamp post shaking my big butt. But
> now in Censor board I chop any shaking of booties. We both will get
> along very well, our inherent hypocrisy will see us through.
>
> Yours lovingly,
> Asha
Except that your term is now over and Vijay Anand (Dev Anand's brother)
is the new Censor board chief.
Samir Dhume
> for 4 hours. Not the story-line or the acting or the sets or anything. The
> fact that this 4 hour film actually holds the viewer's attention for its
> entire duration is achievement enough, forget all its other (supposed)
> merits.
I think anything with a bit of cricket would be a hit. Remember,
we're a country that fills the stands for a Film Stars X1 Vs a
Members of Parliament X1.
samir
Asha Parekh
>
>
>Except that your term is now over and Vijay Anand (Dev Anand's brother)
>is the new Censor board chief.
True. Bharat didnt want his wife to be working. I had no option but to quit.
Regards,
Asha
>
>http://www.rediff.com/entertai/2001/sep/26anand.htm
samarth harish shah
> samarth harish shah <shs...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> > for 4 hours. Not the story-line or the acting or the sets or anything. The
> > fact that this 4 hour film actually holds the viewer's attention for its
> > entire duration is achievement enough, forget all its other (supposed)
> > merits.
>
> I think anything with a bit of cricket would be a hit. Remember,
Funny that nobody else thought of making a cricket-based movie before,
then. :-) Well, actually, that's not true. Awwal Number had a *lot* of
cricket and it was a flop. I think there was an old Dev Anand movie, too,
where he played a cricketers. Old-timers will no doubt enlighten us on the
name and the fate of that movie. :-)
My point remains. Whatever the reason, AFAIK, the movie made very few
people get up and take a break while it was still running.
-Samarth.
Samir Dhume
> Funny that nobody else thought of making a cricket-based movie before,
> then. :-) Well, actually, that's not true. Awwal Number had a *lot* of
> cricket and it was a flop. I think there was an old Dev Anand movie, too,
> where he played a cricketers. Old-timers will no doubt enlighten us on the
> name and the fate of that movie. :-)
Awwal Number starred Dev Anand too, didn't it? He was the
BCCI chief and the CBI chief. :)
I don't know of another cricket-based Dev Anand movie though
I vaguely recall a Dev Anand song on a cricket field - it
was either 'GirlFriend' or 'Love something or the other'.
Unintentionally hilarious song actually.
> My point remains. Whatever the reason, AFAIK, the movie made very few
> people get up and take a break while it was still running.
Okay, I concede your point.
samir
samarth harish shah
> samarth harish shah <shs...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
> > Funny that nobody else thought of making a cricket-based movie before,
> > then. :-) Well, actually, that's not true. Awwal Number had a *lot* of
> > cricket and it was a flop. I think there was an old Dev Anand movie, too,
> > where he played a cricketers. Old-timers will no doubt enlighten us on the
> > name and the fate of that movie. :-)
>
> Awwal Number starred Dev Anand too, didn't it? He was the
> BCCI chief and the CBI chief. :)
Yes, BCCI chief and police chief, I think, but perhaps you're right, he
might have been CBI chief. But Dev Anand wasn't the 'hero', well, not
the main one, anyways. It was Aamir Khan.
Interesting combo, that: BCCI chief and police/CBI chief. Might've been
useful in these days of match-fixing. :-) Our current BCCI chief is a
maha-swindler/criminal with the law enforcement agencies on his and his
family's tail. No wonder they say movies are always far removed from the
truth. :-)
> I don't know of another cricket-based Dev Anand movie though
> I vaguely recall a Dev Anand song on a cricket field - it
> was either 'GirlFriend' or 'Love something or the other'.
> Unintentionally hilarious song actually.
Old B&W movie. Dev Anand is the hero and he's an avid cricketer (probably
a club cricketer or something) - a batsman, of course. :-) I guess 'hero'
and bowler are mutually exclusive.
<snip>
-Samarth [ villain #1 ].