rbjeremy

When I first saw Sangam back in 1965 on its initial release in Malaysia, I was a young boy whose deep impressions of the film was the lady in a white sari. I saw it again in 1974 on its re release. For the second viewing, it was the music and the songs. Unfortunately I had seen "Bobby" by then and thought all the three leads looked far too matured for the "teenage" and "young" characters they were playing on screen. But that was the trend of those bygone days when older actors played younger roles. It is rare for any musical that every single tune is as enduring to the ears as in Sangam. Only "My Fair Lady' "The Sound Of Music" and "Bobby" (1973) comes to mind. Since then with the convenience of television and now the DVD I had seen watched it once every few years and I revisited the film again last night. The male bonding and the sacrifice of Rajendra Kumar is very Asian and may well be on its way to be extinct. This sense of Asian obligation and moral value was and to some extend still is prevalent is a sense of maintaining a status quo and not rock the boat in a bad situation for want of not turning it worse. It is not a wrong or right decision. Everything that needs to be said about the acting, about the cinematography and its importance in Hindi cinema by taking the musical numbers out of the studios to exotic locations has been elaborated in these pages. What strikes me is the way in which Raj Kapoor with the use of music and only three principal characters hold our attention for more than three hours. All other characters appear briefly solely for narrative development. Although it is not a masterpiece, it is an enduring example of a simple love story (which has been done a million times over); with its chemistry between the characters and its music does not seem dated and still shine above others more than 40 years after its premier.

As an admirer of Kurosawa, I have been warned by many on the political slant of the film. I do not blame Kurosawa for having made "The Most Beautiful" (1944) as it was probably a film which he was forced to make, but with "Rhapsody" made 45 years after the war ; his view of things in nothing short of being fascist. Japan was the aggressor. When Italy and Germany fell, they still believed they could win the war on the Asian front. If not for the bombs, how many more non Japanese nationals would have lost their lives or endured torture? They invaded. They caused such atrocities which human history had never before recorded. The Japanese militia was trained to commit suicide rather than surrender. If not for the H-Bombs, Japan will never have surrendered. The H-bombs were a necessity of the time. Why should an American feel embarrassed and apologise to the Japanese for Hiroshima and Nagazaki? It is the Japanese who should say no more to Japanese imperialism and apologises to the entire world for having invaded plundered raped mutilated and caused such suffering to the entire human race living in the east at the time. It is the Japanese who should say they have learned their lesson. After this I doubt if I will be able to see "the humanism" of Kurosawa in "Red Beard" in the same light. For those who think America wrong in 1945, well maybe it is high time they finance a film made by Jews apologising to the Germans for the concentration camps of WWII.