Sunita

Re-titled a "Throw of the Dice" (and appropriately subtitled "A Romance of India") for American consumption, this late-term silent film was doomed to failure as it did not feature Greta Garbo or Charlie Chaplin in the non-speaking roles. But, its dreamy production values and international flavor played well in theaters not equipped for sound, and audiences in India were understandably receptive. The story begins in the Indian jungle, where pretty Seta Devi (as Sunita) has been secreted by a hermitic father.

You will immediately see that hiding the fetchingly-attired Ms. Devi from society isn't going to last because the area also serves as tiger hunting grounds for two ruling cousins - "Good King" Charu Roy (as Ranjit) and "Bad King" Himansu Rai (as Sohat).

In the opening hunt, the latter shoots the former "accidentally on purpose" with an arrow. The former unexpectedly recovers, due to the tender loving care provided by Devi. So, if he is to steal nubile young woman from Mr. Roy, Mr. Rai must take more drastic measures, which he does. The cousins' mutual affection for gambling advances the plot to predictable results.

Irony exists in the line, "I know from your horoscope that gambling will bring you unhappiness." The film's main strengths are its beautiful locations, sets, and costumes. All of this will probably bore you, if you're not familiar with silent films.

***** Prapancha Pash (8/16/29) Franz Osten ~ Seta Devi, Charu Roy, Himansu Rai, Modhu Bose

A Throw Of Dice / Prapanch Pash (1929) : Brief Review -

A gambling and fascinating Romance by a German Director based on Indian Epic Mahabharata. Now who doesn't know the gambling chapter from Mahabharata in India, we all know it as our culture and we even the consequences of it. Franz Osten's A Throw Of Dice is inspired from the 'Dice Trick' chapter of Mahabharata but rest of the narrative is completely different. Two neighboring Indian kingdoms are ruled by cousins - King Ranjit and King Sohat. Unbeknownst to Ranjit, Sohat is plotting to seize control of his kingdom and wishes to marry his girl. This part we have already learned from Mahabharata but here the ending is different and yes it is a Happy Ending. The composer of the new version said a great thing about the film which i think is the best sum up - "A cross between Chaplin, Cecil B. DeMille and an early Bollywood movie." Yes i mean it is exactly that and if not then anything closest to it. That DeMille's reference seemed unethical to me though, rest I agree with it completely. A fine Romance is captured with its essence and is normalised according to the period and situations. Additionally, the gambling trick and hero's realisation of harms caused by it are one of the major highlights of the film. Not to forget the great villainous character which has everything fit in realistic manners. It does not over-use the cinematic liberty even though it had a chance to do so after having such period set in it and that's what makes it a little special from a common film. Osten has worked very well while catching the correct tone and sense of Indian Culture. Overall, it's a Classic fascinating Romance that we have been loving since decades but it was made much before people started loving this genre.

RATING - 8/10*

By - #samthebestest

From the very beginning the visuals are absolutely phenomenal, rivaling many pictures that followed in subsequent decades. The rich jungle landscapes play a part in that excellence, hand in hand with the natural lighting and the many scenes of wildlife that serve as establishing shots. But the production design has much to do with the splendor before us: the costume design is plainly alluring, as is set decoration. Outside the jungle, filming locations like Sohat's palace or Ranjit's kingdom are just as eye-catching. The great number of extras and trained animals lend further to the spectacle, to say nothing of the readily evident charisma of the primary cast. 'A throw of dice' would be a worthy view simply for the fact of the feast for our eyes.

Still, the imagery is only half the movie, and it has substantial value otherwise. The plot moves quickly, but never so much as to overwhelm. There's a measure of directness that accompanies the brisk pace, though still the screenplay leaves just enough room for the cast to exercise their craft. The performances reflect a hint of nuance that's unexpected in these circumstances, and welcome. Seeta Devi, Charu Roy, and Himanshu Rai are superb, bringing Sunita, Ranjit, and Sohat to life with range and personality that defies the straightforward approach to the screenplay. At that: it's not a terribly complicated story on hand, yet the elements of drama, intrigue, trickery, conflict, and romance are finely balanced and written well to hold our attention, and be genuinely exciting in the execution. And it all builds to a conclusion that's not just satisfying, but rewarding.

The only particular detraction I could make is the music of the 2006 restoration and re-release. True, I haven't the means to compare the original score of the 1929 premiere. And yes, considered of itself, I think the compositions are quite good. Yet there's a sense of anachronistic disparity between the pristine sound of 2006 and the imagery of nearly 80 years prior that it accompanies. The two parts just don't quite fit together, no matter how swell they are of their own accord.

Yet this is ultimately a minor concern, and otherwise, 'A throw of dice' is outstanding and highly enjoyable. It's a shining example of how, without any need of sound or verbal dialogue, silent films can still stand toe to toe with "talkies" of the past 90-odd years or more. The movie tells a compelling story, with great performances, wrapped up with arresting sights to greet our vision - and it does so in well under 90 minutes. Black and white silent pictures comprise a niche genre these days, but there are plenty that very much remain deserving to seek out and watch again, or even for the first time, and this is one of them by all means. 'A throw of dice' is one magnificent gamble that's well worth taking.

Actors & Actresses from the silent movie era tend to overact by today's standards but the acting in this sweet little movie is commendably restrained especially for an "action/suspense type movie.

The story is of two Indian kings, both avid gamblers who both fall for the same woman played by a functionally beautiful Seeta Devi. One of the kings has been secretly plotting to assassinate the other and take over his kingdom but his first attempt only wounds him. He is nursed by health by Sunita (Devi) & her father who is a man of medicine who has previously left the kings court to live in the forest because he is put off by the gambling.

The entry of Sunita onto the scene escalates the stakes as the evil king uses various methods to eliminate the other & not only take his kingdom but take Sunita as well.

The story is nothing special but as I said before the acting is reserved for a silent picture. Devi in particular is able to convey her feelings with a simple look or facial expression, an excellent display of subtle acting far different from the usual histrionics that you'd usually see from actresses at this time.

Look for some excellent camera work at the beginning showing some of the local wildlife.

Kings Ranjit and Sohan may well be cousins who share a love of gambling but, unbeknownst to Ranjit, Sohan plots to kill him and make his kingdom his own. Sohan's plot fails though and Ranjit is only wounded during his hunting "accident" and is saved by a local healer. While staying in this village, Ranjit meets the beautiful Sunita and decides to make her his wife. Her father refuses due to Ranjit's famed gambling habit but when Sohan gets wind of the lovers' planned elopement, he comes up with another evil plot.

Unlike the consistently thorough IMDb reviewer "Igenlode Wordsmith", I was not fortunate enough to see the BFI dust this film off in Trafalgar Square with a live orchestra earlier this year. Instead I had to catch it on channel 4 (screened at an absurdly late hour) but the reason for the showing was the same – the re-scoring of the original film by composer Nitin Sawhney. I don't mean to ignore this aspect of the film but I also don't want to fixate on it and ignore the film as a whole. Before watching it, it is important to accept that this is a silent film from India almost eighty years old, and perhaps put aside your modern eyes to some degree – complaining about a lack of dialogue may say more about the reviewer than the film! However you should expect the standards of the silent era and of a film this age and not be complaining because the film is actually an impressive piece of silent cinema. The story is a strong story of love, betrayal and murder. When you can describe characters as "evil king" and "bad king" you won't be surprised to learn that this is not the most subtle of character films but this approach suits the medium as one does need to overstate things when doing it without the benefit of sound. I was held by it for the 80-odd minute running time – itself an impressive fact considering it was made in the twenties.

Continuing the theme of scale, IMDb's trivia footnote tells me this film had 10,000 extras, 1000 horses and 50 elephants – I wouldn't have guessed those figures but there is no doubt that the film is impressive in regards the scale of the production. The sets and shots are impressive in their sheer size; this is not a film shot on cheap sets but one that wears the majesty of its characters in all the detail. Osten directs very well, managing these shots but also bringing off intimate character moments as well as some technically clever stuff as well (the reflection in the water shot was my favourite). He also brings the best out of his cast – although again you need to appreciate that this is a silent film and that the acting style demanded is different. Roy is the hero of the piece and he performs this task well, even if he is a tad dull with it. Likewise Devi makes for a very attractive heroine who works her chemistry with the hero as well as she does her lack of chemistry with the villain, however it is Rai's film to be had. He play the villain and he gets to do so with a wonderfully melodramatic performance that plays up so the audience can see he is being sneaky, plotting etc. In a modern film we would call him cheesy but here it is just what was required and his performance is a delight, adding energy to the film.

Finally, given that it is the reason for the recent showing, it would be impolite not to mention Sawhney's score – indeed it would be foolish because it is excellent. It manages to be modern and old fashioned at the same time but most importantly, it perfectly matches the tone of the film as it plays. This means that the drama is lifted, the humour is played out a little and the involvement and attitude of the audience is guided by the music – and I cannot think of what more I would want from a score. Will I be putting it on my pod for casual listening? Well no, but within the film it is perfect and I am jealous of the people who saw it with London Symphony Orchestra in the open air.

Overall then a quite impressive silent film in terms of scale and delivery, the addition of a great new score only serves to make it better.