Jallian Wala Bagh (1977)

I was watching some interviews of Gulzar recently on YouTube. One thing that he mentioned in almost all his conversations was the impact of India’s partition on his life and works. Not surprising for someone who was born on the other side of the border that wasn’t present at that point of time, Gulzar talked very fondly about the land that was once a part of his being, and that presently was alienated from him, at least in terms of physical distances. But despite this admission, we find that the man was hardly ever a part of any cinematic venture that explored the stories of that painful time. Most of his work that revolved around that motif was not done for the big screen. His poems, his stories, and anecdotes on the subject are a part of his poetry books, his memoirs, and some plays that have been adapted from the same.

Gulzar in a still from Jallian Wala Bagh

However my quick research reminded me of one movie set in pre-independence India, which Gulzar contributed to immensely. Jallian Wala Bagh, a movie directed by Mr. Balraj Tah (one time director/film-maker), had its screenplay and dialogues written by the maestro of words. Chronicling the events around the horrific incident that gave a new impetus to the Indian Nationalist movement, the movie can also be termed as a sketchy biography of Shaheed Uddham Singh, the revolutionary young man who murdered the man largely responsible for the mass massacre that happened on 13^th April, 1919.

Parikshit Sahni essays the role of Uddham Singh, while Vinod Khanna and Deepti Naval play major parts that bring in some star value to the otherwise non-commercial looking venture. Shabana Azmi has an insignificant cameo, but the surprise of the show is a meaty role by none other than Gulzar. As a young man contributing to the freedom struggle while living in London, Gulzar delivers a patchy performance that vindicates his decision of not going in front of the camera ever again. However the portions involving him are some of the most polished part of the otherwise amateurish attempt by the first time director.

The movie is far from being a very fine one. However, at just over 100 minutes in length, it is a reasonably good watch, at least from the point of view of being an important film based on true events. It is tough to describe it as a biopic as it fails to do justice to that genre despite having Uddham Singh as a fulcrum for the narrative. As an effort that documents a critical chapter of our freedom movement, the movie again falls short. Ultimately it ends up as a confused attempt that could have been made into a defining feature, had some more research and effort been done before making it. Some of the factors that redeem the movie are:

Non-violence vs Violence: How to get India to revolt?

• Its depiction of the underling conflict between the extreme revolutionaries and the moderate (and non-violent) Gandhian reformers. The characters of Om Shivpuri and Vinod Khanna, father and son, are at constant loggerheads regarding the approach that the freedom struggle should adopt. Here Deepti Naval provides the balancing act and articulates the difficulty in making one choice out of the two. This debate later continues between Uddham Singh and Om Shivpuri’s character in London, two decades after the incident of Jallian Wala Bagh.
• The introduction of a global perspective to the proceedings in the later part of the film. When Uddham Singh reaches London, the world is in a state of conflict, with Hitler on the warpath. It is refreshing to see a movie talk about the broader canvas, while not losing the grip of the core plot. The use of an English lady’s character that supports Uddham Singh and Sunil (Gulzar) against the British is done really well, and executed sans any stereotypes.
• A major part of the second part (which is set in England) is in English. This again is quite different for a movie that largely talks to a Hindi speaking audience. In fact this leads me to believe that the second part of the movie, which has much finesse as compared to the first, must have been shot first. The first hour of the movie (the events leading to the massacre) might have been shot later with more mainstream appeal in the hope of giving the movie a commercial release.

Parikshit Sahni as 'Uddham Singh', the revolutionary who killed  Micheal O'Dwyer, the man responsible for the massacre of Jallian Wala Bagh

In the hands of an expert (or rather more ambitious) director, the subject of the movie could have been exploited better. Haven’t we seen many Hollywood movies going back to the past to churn our Oscar winning films? Here it must be said that our Hindi film industry has not made use of the vast source of literature that our pre-independence days resulted it. Neither has our period of struggle been given its due importance in many of our films. We have a very few films that talk about that era, and sadly many of them are on similar subjects (with the life of Bhagat Singh seeing more than five cinematic representations over the years). 

A Poster of the movie: Highlighting the commercial elements, while concealing the real ones

Kalyug (1981)

The Shashi Kapoor-Shyam Benegal combo worked well in Junoon, which was an adaptation of a Ruskin Bond novella. Apparently wanting to take the successful collaboration forward, they decided to adapt the great Indian epic Mahabharata into a film by weaving it into a corporate modern-day scenario. This was some thirty years before Prakash Jha successfully aped the idea and applied it to a modern-day political setting.

Before I go on to talk about the film; I feel the word ‘epic’ has been coined just to describe the magnanimity of our two ancient relics- Mahabharata and Ramayana. Like most others from my generation I got introduced to both through popular tele-serials and some school text-book reading. Recently however I found time to go through some excellent re-telling of both- CR Rajagopalachari’s Ramayana, and Devdutt Pattnaik’s Jaya (an illustrated version of Mahabharata). The latter was a more enriching experience than the former as Mahabharata truly is an amazingly sinuous yet cohesive work of art. It is so wonderfully detailed and multi-dimensional that it is difficult to remember most of the things. On the other hand I know pretty much all the things about Ramayana which, comparatively, is much simpler and easier to comprehend. So post reading Jaya, I got the feeling that I had never really known Mahabharata.

So when I sat down to watch Kalyug, I did it with great anticipation and excitement. I had thing movie with me for the past 3-4 months but never really got down to watching it, for at the back of my mind I always had this thing that I would read the epic once prior to experiencing it. With Shyam Benegal at the helm I was quite certain that the film would enthrall me. But now after watching the movie, in retrospect, I feel that I did great wrong by having such high expectations from this endeavor.

Kalyug is by no means a bad film. It is definitely a notch above the regular 1980s fare. However that aside, I am quite surprised by the lack of a lot of things in the movie. Coherence, for one. Emotional appeal, for another. Good acting (most surprisingly) for another another. The movie starts off with a rather simplistic narration of the rather simplistic (as compared to the one Mahabharata had) family tree of the two families involved. It is perfectly justified, and rather thoughtful, of the makers to keep the number of protagonists limited or else it would have been difficult to do justice to all of them in a 150 min motion picture. The two families are two rich business houses of India, fighting for the same contracts and tenders. The movie wastes no time in establishing the hostilities between these two families of cousins, related by blood but separated by their love for power and ambition.

As soon as the drama started, I excitedly started to draw parallels between the characters from the great epic and the movie. It is surely captivating, for someone who knows a bit of Mahabharata, to decipher and witness the way in which Shyam Benegal has made some interesting moves. Some of the characters are given the same names as in the epic. Karan Singh (Shashi Kapoor) plays Karan, a devoted friend to Duryodhan in the book, who is Dhanraj in the movie (essayed by Victor Banarjee). Karan Singh is pretty much the central character in the movie and it seems to be an adaptation of the saga from his perspective. Other characters with the same names are Subhadra, Krishna, Parikshit, amongst others. Many plot elements are cleverly harmonized with the ones from the book (something that Mani Ratnam tried in Raavan) and identifying the same is quite enjoyable for the first few minutes. Post the hour mark, however, the movie becomes quite bland and lifeless in its treatment.

My main issues with the film are-

·         The characters are not well developed. None of them are likeable and the motivations behind many of the things the various people do are quite unclear. I couldn’t understand the role Rekha played for instance. She is Supriya, the wife of Dharmraj (Eldest brother of the troika playing the Pandavas), and throughout the movie comes across as an irritable lady who finds it tough to get along with her mother-in-law and her younger devar’s wife (who is also her niece). This younger devar Bharatraj (Anant Nag interpreting Arjuna) and his Bhabhi share a very unclear relationship. Till the end there is no clarity whether their relationship is just one of mutual respect or something more (In the Mahabharata there is no Bhabhi and Draupadi is wedded to all the five brothers). Similarly the relationship between Dharmraj (Raj Babbar essaying Yudhishtir) and his wife is shown to be dysfunctional but there are no reasons given. Balraj (Kulbhushan Kharbanda as Bheem) is shown as a pleasure-loving guy, but plays no critical role in the narrative (except being a trigger to the accidental death of his cousin Sandeep- a mentally unstable Dushasan?). Also, there is no explanation given for the great dislike Bharatraj has for Karan Singh (The Arjun-Karan war).

·         A lot of the things from the Mahabharata are necessarily forced-fitted into the narrative, while many crucial things are not touched upon at all. So there are the incapable parents, growing senile and having no control over the actions of their kids. Similarly Arjun’s marriage to Subhadra (which wasn’t a big plot point in Mahabharata) is given great prominence by the introduction of a sappy and boring romantic track between Bharatraj and Subhadra. There is a Bhishma Pitamah too (played by AK Hangal!), but too plays no real part in the drama unlike the book where he was termed as the root-cause of the entire war. Also, in today’s context a woman bearing kids with Sadhus and priests as a mark of her devotion is too much to digest. There is also a fleeting mention of a past love affair between Supriya and Karan Singh (In the book Draupadi had prevented Karan from participating in her Swayamwar on the grounds of him not being from a royal family. Much later she had admitted to being attracted to him despite her being married to the Pandavas).

·         The central conflict in the Mahabharata had its roots in the fight for the throne. Both parties believed that they were the true heir to the throne of Hastinapur. The hostility got to the highest point post the game of dice between Yudhishtir and Shakuni (representing Kauravas), in which Pandavas lose everything, followed by the subsequent disrobing and public humiliation of Draupadi. In the movie, there is no apparent central conflict. There is a slight throwaway to the Draupadi humiliation episode when income tax officers treat Savitri with disrespect while frisking her wardrobe. However the entire war between the two families comes across as manufactured and unreal.  

·         The acting by many of the leads looks embarrassingly amateurish. A part of the discredit for this should also go to the writers who didn’t really develop any of the characters well. Anant Nag seriously hams it up in the last few portions of the film. Victor Banarjee as Dhanraj fails to evoke sympathy or ethos despite playing a bit of a loser (again contrary to the tough and overbearing Duryodhan of Mahabharata). Sushma Seth is given too much to do, and is unconvincing in many of the scenes. Supriya Pathak irritates as the young bride of Bharatraj who has nothing to do in the world except listening to a formulaic Bappi Lahiri’ish’ love song. The only actor who actually does well is Shashi Kapoor, who is convincing as the angst ridden Karan Singh. He gets the meatiest part and does a good job of it.

It is not that there is nothing to appreciate in the movie. The idea of retelling Mahabharata in the corporate world itself deserves kudos. Some of the references to the epic are done really well. For instance the death of Karan while he is changing the wheel of his car is striking. Similarly at the end how Parikshit (a kid) emerges as the only heir to the entire set-up highlights the futility of the war between the cousins. Apart from these few well thought of references, the entire corporate set-up is done realistically. The fight for a Government contract, the intricacies of law, the dissatisfied union, the import of raw materials etc. is shown in an authentic manner (though in a certain sense it reminds of the Trishul corporate conflict). The first hour is quite fast paced and engaging.

Parting Note: All said and done, Kalyug is in no ways a perfect modern-day interpretation of the Mahabharata. It suffers from the similar flaws as Prakash Jha’s Raajneeti (a far more entertaining film). However, for the people who are aware of the epic saga, this movie is a good watch if only for the effort it makes. 

Dillagi (1978)

Dharmendra and Hema Malini as professors in an all girls’ college, with a playful Dharmendra sprouting exotic Sanskrit poetry that border on the erotic, and an upright Hema teaching the girls Chemistry, literally adopting all its dryness and lack of fun. Sounds like fun? Basu Chatterjee’s little known 1977 film (and understandably so) is an interesting idea treated in a mundane manner, that many of the times, borders on the inane. Despite that there is a certain charm in watching the two stalwart actors (a couple in real life too) rise above the script at many instances and creating some genuine laughs by the sheer strength of their performances.

A simple premise (like almost all of Basu Chatterjee’s other films) of how an independent and well settled working woman, who is about to cross the acceptable marriageable age, is wooed by a charming man who she absolutely detests in the beginning- Dillagi is a kind of film that you would not mind watching on a Sunday afternoon while it plays on TV- nothing less, nothing more. Actually, when I come to think of it, I don’t really recall any other Hindi movie that has a setting like this (except maybe a terrible Anil Kapoor-Karishma Kapoor- Juhi Chawla film Andaaz which also talks about romance in high school). The movie has a host of side actors (either as students or as fellow professors of the star pair), and like all other light-hearted films of that time also stars Asrani (as Hema’s brother). The songs by Rajesh Roshan are nice, and ‘Main Kaun saa geet sunaaoon’ is the pick of the lot.

One thing about the film is pretty clear- it looks like one which was agreed upon by Dharmendra and Hema just to spend some quality time together while making of the film. The production values aren’t that great and Dharmendra looks quite jaded in many of the scenes. Basu Chatterjee perhaps wanted to create something on the lines of Chupke Chupke, but falls well short in terms of the entertainment and engagement quotient of the narrative. The first half is packed with intended humor (which many people won’t find as humorous), while the second half focuses on the romance between the two protagonists. I liked the simplistic second half more endearing. However the finale fight sequence is so shoddily done that it seems to be a sequence out of a low-budget B-grade movie.

Parting note: Harmless ‘almost’ fun. All in all, it is an average film that deserves a watch only because of its lead actors. It’s the kind during which you can attend to an errand for a few minutes and you won’t miss much…