kirk781
Joined Oct 2017
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see ratings breakdowns and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Badges9
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings2.5K
kirk781's rating
Reviews90
kirk781's rating
Did they choose cardboard boxes instead of actors to eke out the characters? Because atleast the first thirty minutes had as much emotion in them as a sock puppet has.
Just re-imaging your film around some sensitive events doesn't make it great. It's neither gritty nor feminist nor realistic. All it is is bland. More boring than watching paint dry.
In fact, if anything, this film reminds me of Birth of a Nation. Not in terms of visual storytelling. That was a cinematic triumph atleast. But in terms of obsession.
Just like that film glorified all the wrong parts, even for it's time, and portrayed some humans as less than another, this too plays into that cliche. Films were used as subtle propaganda and this, I feel, is another to showcase India as a barbaric land stuck in the past.
It's no wonder that Britons are stuck in a romantic notion for their so called glory days of the empire and India was the pinnacle of their achievement. So, films that showcase a modern India which can't manage itself, which lacks a justice system, will obviously have a resonance with certain parts of the British audience.
To heap furthur irony, it's funded by BBC films which and I quote Jimmy McGovern "one of the most racist institutions in England".
Initially, I thought it was just a bad film, now I believe it's a "bad propagandist film"
Just re-imaging your film around some sensitive events doesn't make it great. It's neither gritty nor feminist nor realistic. All it is is bland. More boring than watching paint dry.
In fact, if anything, this film reminds me of Birth of a Nation. Not in terms of visual storytelling. That was a cinematic triumph atleast. But in terms of obsession.
Just like that film glorified all the wrong parts, even for it's time, and portrayed some humans as less than another, this too plays into that cliche. Films were used as subtle propaganda and this, I feel, is another to showcase India as a barbaric land stuck in the past.
It's no wonder that Britons are stuck in a romantic notion for their so called glory days of the empire and India was the pinnacle of their achievement. So, films that showcase a modern India which can't manage itself, which lacks a justice system, will obviously have a resonance with certain parts of the British audience.
To heap furthur irony, it's funded by BBC films which and I quote Jimmy McGovern "one of the most racist institutions in England".
Initially, I thought it was just a bad film, now I believe it's a "bad propagandist film"
How much is God's responsibility when it comes to the suffering that entails mankind? What matters more : mental peace or wealth or whether the both can Co exist or not. This film primarily addresses the latter question and frames it as a binary.
Sanjeev Kumar is an atheist who believes wealth can solve his problems. God, in form of Krishna, comes to him, promises him wealth but says that it will extract something deeper out of him. He believes comes wealthy beyond his dreams but loses his family peace.
The film tries to frame that man suffers because of their past mistakes (in their past lives, since reincarnation is a part and parcel of Hindu religion) and that God is just and right. Since it is a 70s film, it is no surprise that the film sides with the safer logic.
Still, the filmmakers chose a argumentative topic to make a film on, so kudos to them. The songs are minimal. Coming to the acting, whilst support class is not good, Sanjeev Kumar holds his own. I maintain that he was every bit as good an actor as any in the annals of Hindi cinema and this film is a testament to that. He might not have had the looks and body structure for a modern lead but that's not what defines an actor. What matters is their ability to emote. And few have equaled him and even fewer have surpassed this man.
Sanjeev Kumar is an atheist who believes wealth can solve his problems. God, in form of Krishna, comes to him, promises him wealth but says that it will extract something deeper out of him. He believes comes wealthy beyond his dreams but loses his family peace.
The film tries to frame that man suffers because of their past mistakes (in their past lives, since reincarnation is a part and parcel of Hindu religion) and that God is just and right. Since it is a 70s film, it is no surprise that the film sides with the safer logic.
Still, the filmmakers chose a argumentative topic to make a film on, so kudos to them. The songs are minimal. Coming to the acting, whilst support class is not good, Sanjeev Kumar holds his own. I maintain that he was every bit as good an actor as any in the annals of Hindi cinema and this film is a testament to that. He might not have had the looks and body structure for a modern lead but that's not what defines an actor. What matters is their ability to emote. And few have equaled him and even fewer have surpassed this man.
The film questions where actual beauty lies; is it skin deep or something that permeates the soul. Beauty isn't necessarily something that can be seen or flaunted; inner beauty (read: true beauty) takes time to manifest itself and finally win.
Rupa (played by Zeenat Aman) has a disfigured face and is hence condemned by her villagers and no one wishes to marry her. An engineer (played by Shashi Kapoor) falls in love with her voice, body but never sees her disfigured half of the face until it's too late.
It's a magnificently made film by Raj Kapoor that shines through though two things let it down. First, the music. Usually, music for his films was composed by Shankar - Jaikishan and lyrics written by Shailendra. But the latter had died and composing duties given to Laxmikant Pyarelal. Mukesh, the voice of Raj Kapoor, had died (the film is dedicated to him) and posthumously one song is attached to him. The soundtrack never touches the highs of say 'Shree 420' or 'Mera Naam Joker'.
There is also a dream sequence in this film that harks back to the original one from Awaara (1951) but this one lacked the intensity and B/W cinematography that defined the latter.
Finally, coming to the female lead. Zeenat Aman tries her best but she doesn't just cut it. She was more suited for glamorous roles and her limited acting range clearly shows. Shashi Kapoor plays his duty well but the film relies on the female core which is not top tier.
Still, Raj Kapoor managed to craft a beautiful film as a director. It might not be as good as his 50s/60s output but still showcased that he had a lot of ideas left.
Rupa (played by Zeenat Aman) has a disfigured face and is hence condemned by her villagers and no one wishes to marry her. An engineer (played by Shashi Kapoor) falls in love with her voice, body but never sees her disfigured half of the face until it's too late.
It's a magnificently made film by Raj Kapoor that shines through though two things let it down. First, the music. Usually, music for his films was composed by Shankar - Jaikishan and lyrics written by Shailendra. But the latter had died and composing duties given to Laxmikant Pyarelal. Mukesh, the voice of Raj Kapoor, had died (the film is dedicated to him) and posthumously one song is attached to him. The soundtrack never touches the highs of say 'Shree 420' or 'Mera Naam Joker'.
There is also a dream sequence in this film that harks back to the original one from Awaara (1951) but this one lacked the intensity and B/W cinematography that defined the latter.
Finally, coming to the female lead. Zeenat Aman tries her best but she doesn't just cut it. She was more suited for glamorous roles and her limited acting range clearly shows. Shashi Kapoor plays his duty well but the film relies on the female core which is not top tier.
Still, Raj Kapoor managed to craft a beautiful film as a director. It might not be as good as his 50s/60s output but still showcased that he had a lot of ideas left.