Monday, February 25, 2019

Sei Chokh - সেই চোখ - Uttam Kumar, Sabitri Chatterjee


Saw this a while ago, and it was quite unexpected at various turns, including the finale where one is still sympathetic with the protagonist but cannot in all fairness wish to defend him, even if his guilt was accidental manslaughter and subsequent cover up, rather than deliberate murder.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga3xSZjhGhI

Dui Bhai - Uttam Kumar, Biswajeet, Sabitri Chattopadhyay, Sulata Chowdhury, 1961


Heart breaking beginning, with two newly orphaned little boys robbed by one uncle, brought and left at the other uncles' door, and beaten and thrown out by those.

With that beginning, one doesn't quite expect the sudden and very pleasant change of the little boys into the two heroes who seem to be doing more than well enough, except the elder one is avoiding not just marriage but even speaking to women, or being in presence of women.

The character of the elder brother, concentrating all his love and care on the slightly younger one and hence forced to become a harsh, strict guardian rather than the young man that he is who could have a good life of his own, is so well depicted, it could only be in a Bengali film sans the explanatory dialogues about how he has nothing because he sacrificed it and still does. Amazing how well Uttam Kumar portrays it, but then he is so good an artist and has portrayed so very many diverse characters so very well, one has to wonder if Bengali films would have been even a hundredth of what they were if he were not playing roles.

Lovely music, too. But the video seems to be missing some scenes, one at 1:18:55 (- or is that one messed up, appearing later at about 1:32:00? Or is it a flashback?), and at least one before that. But here at 1:37:40, ones heart breaks for the elder brother.

The strange turn in the story, involving clash between the politicos turned film crew and local tribals 1:48:00, is incomprehensible in light of the storyline until then, unless it's based on a true incident.

Have to love the quote at 1:55:35 - "ten brothers can't manage what a sister can do for one"! And thankfully, it all ends well, despite the several scares about life of one brother or other!


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fy6jO25fYSM

Monday, February 11, 2019

Sunehra Sansar - "Golden Creation"

So, appropriately enough, first Rani Padmaavatie of Hindi films was Hema Malini.

The title of the film, Sunehra Sansar, isn't easy to translate, for the word Sansar (or samsaara as pronounced in South India) can be translated to world, universe, family of one's own (as apart from that one belonged to until marriage), or all of the above, and not because there is a confusion, but because of a deep recognition of the universal oneness at heart, of all of this  - and so, "Golden Creation" is the best one can amorphously paraphrase this word that eludes a European limitation of thought.

Heart breaking film. Heart breaking, not because it's a tearfest, but because, having presented the viewers with a set of sterling characters facing hardships and fortune reversals and more, then it presents a conclusion that seems like unavoidable tragedy - but isn't.

The lovers are separated because he's duty bound to marry the orphan sister of the dying sister in law who has been loco parent is to him and other two younger brothers of her husband, but he fails to imagine he might have thereby been parent to a child before he married, and nor does he ever go inform the young woman he loved about his dilemma and the solution he saw he was forced to choose.

Much worse, when everything is straightened out finally, the young woman now united with her lost daughter who, it turns out, grew up in the father's home with all but the elder widower brother unaware of the relationship, and the family is finally aware of it all, do they accept then the mother if this girl who grew up as one of their own, as indeed she is? No, she leaves, with a letter informing them she now blames No one but only her own fate for her travails.

Why wouldn't they accept her as part of the family? Because, legally at the time the film released in India, she couldn't have been a second wife, and if she were accepted as the first, then the orphan he did formally marry would now be without a respectable status, for no fault of her own - and with nothing else to depend on.

Is this true for all of India? No, only for some communities, chiefly the majority. But religion isn't against this, it's only the legal reform, accepted by most. Was it merely the question of legality then why the young mother of the daughter is all alone finally?

No, and therein the heartbreak.

Indian culture woukd hold her in position if a wife hes bound to honour and cherish, all the more so because she has been alone through the years since she was so suddenly left alone by her love of her life. She hasn't married, and with her wealth and beauty she could very well have. So why, then?

It seems the obvious punishment from a conservative agenda to a young woman who faiked to keep her virginity despite being not yet married formally, but this isn't culture of India, and that's the reason why the conclusion is tragic - apart from the complete lack of logic and the misogyny therein, since he isn't punished except by her, for which she's been berated by almost everyone including him.

It's the agenda of ex colonial regimes related institutions, most specifically the church, that sets the tone of the least punishment set for the woman, and it's completely arbitrary, because the man would have been seen as her "natural husband" had she, rather than he, had tried marrying someone else despite her dalliance - as the son of a pastor the bridegroom in Tess Of D'Urberville informs his bride of hardly a day, when he finds her candid confession to him of being a rape victim.

So, according to abrahmic - but not Indian - rules, its the woman and only the woman, who is bound to the male, but the male is still free! Why is civilisation of humanity needed in any way to set this up as a rule, since it's based in merely nature, as can be very well termed jungle law, or Red Riding Hood danger of the forest?

If the film had a suitable candidate waiting for her, it wouldn't be a tragedy, but no, they saw it fit to send her off alone, with her wealth to console the viewers about her future with a promise she's not going to starve. If that's good enough for her, why isn't it good enough for him to go away instead while she takes his place in the family? He could go with the orphan he married, so no one would be lonely. But no, she must be seen to suffer due to her having crossed the line!

Wish one could say this was the India in 1970, and India is no longer quite so much a slave to powers associated with the ex colonial regimes. But a film decades later, Dil Kya Kare, had a very similar storyline, albeit without the extended family and with possible consort for the mother of the daughter who she did not turn to after all.

So the slave mindset continues, and it's not in those  termed orthodox or conservative - those epithets are usually stuck to people attached to India and not as heirs of invaders - but those who would brand themselves progressive, secular et al.

And therein the tragedy of those blinkered by slavery to Macaulay.


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HIs47fVzXYU&t=241s

Raj Kapoor Speaking When Informed About Being Honoured

Appropriately timed discovery of this last interview, posted by DD on his birth anniversary, thirty years since his passing on.

His last interview? His being comes through so very completely, open, genuine humility.

Responding to a comment below the original YT video by

Sim Bim:-

"I'm not sure why Afghans/Pashtuns/Pathans have this misconception that Raj Kapoor was Afghan/Pathan. Kapoors have never said that they are Pathans. They call themselves as Punjabis. Bollywood's first family, the Kapoor family, are Punjabi Hindus of Khatri caste. They are originally from Samundri (a city near Faisalabad in present day Punjab province of Pakistan). Prithviraj Kapoor was born in Samundri, Punjab (now in Pakistan). His father Keshavmal Kapoor was an officer in Imperial Indian Police. He was posted in Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) and then to Peshawar and moved his family there. The Kapoor haveli in Peshawar was built during the family's stay in Peshawar in 1920s (Kapoors lived in Peshawar for 4-6 years only). Kapoors lived in Lyallpur, Peshawar, Lahore, and Calcutta before moving to Bombay in 1930s. As a youth, Prithviraj Kapoor used to do theater and formed a traveling theater company 'Prithviraj Theater'. Prithviraj Kapoor moved his family to Bombay because he was offered a role as Sikander/Alexander in a movie that was being made in Bombay. Prithviraj Kapoor was 6 feet 3 inches tall, had blue/green eyes, and fair/light skin which mesmerized the director of the movie and he cast him as the first Indian actor to portray Greek Alexander. The film became a blockbuster. The success of the film made him a mega star. This was the beginning of a legend of Indian cinema whose contributions include everything from filmmaking to acting, direction, production, music, and screenwriting. The rest, as they say, is history. His descendents include Raj Kapoor, Shammi Kapoor, Shashi Kapoor, Rishi Kapoor, Randhir Kapoor, Karishma Kapoor, Kareena Kapoor, and Ranbir Kapoor. Shammi Kapoor's wife Geeta Bali and Rishi Kapoor's wife Neetu Singh are also well-known Bollywood actresses. Prithviraj Theater is still run by Shashi Kapoor's daughter. The Kapoors still follow Punjabi customs and traditions of wedding and intermarry within Punjabis only.

Source: I have read autobiography of Shammi Kapoor in which he has mentioned his family's origin."


Saying that they were not pathans is based on a misconception that pathans must be non Hindu, which is silly. Confusing race for faith produces such misconceptions. This clan is, was, much more pink than wheat as far as completions go, and yes one does recall their being called pathans, but it's not relevant if they are or not. Again, it's a racist thinking, chiefly from pakis, that being pathans is superior and being dermis inferior, and pakis openly write comments on internet saying Indians are short, dark and ugly, neither of which fits general facts, but then again paki racism is taught, not natural. There are plenty of dark Punjabi of origin across Sindhu river, even Baloch, and plenty of fair Tamilians (and others of South India or West or East for that matter) with light eyes, and all sorts of varieties across India. First and foremost India values talent, knowledge, honesty and goodness. And no, they dont "intermarry with Punjabi only", silly, there are several obvious counterexamples. Jennifer Kendall married Shashi Kapoor,  she was English, one son Karan Kapoor is a blond blue eyed copy of his father, Kunal is a dark eyed dark haired son with his mum's face, and daughter Sanjna is almost photocopy of her Kapoor granny. Then there is Babita, with a Sindhi three quarters and Yorkshire origin maternal grandmother.  More variety in the next generation. Jain family, for example, that youngest daughter of Raj Kapoor married into, or the in laws of kareena who are very mixed. Anyway, Kapoor clan not being pathans is based on racist premises, and yes they did say they were, and don't see why not. Gaandhaarie was of Afghan origin, not everyone converted or died.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ftcr2F406BY

Agnipariksha, From Bengal To North Centric India, Varied Values

Agni Pariksha - Bengali Movie - Uttam, Suchitra

And

Chhoti Si Mulaqat



Having seen the Hindi remake at an early age when it was quite new, and not thought of it as much but ridiculous  - which was not an exceptional opinion about it, then, at that - it came as a surprise, when, halfway through first watching this one realised that this was the original, and it wasn't ridiculous at all. And subsequent viewings merely made the surprise grow along with the intrigue about why, the theme that had seemed rather simplistic in sixties at best, now seems far from it, but much deeper if anything.

For one, there are of course differences between the original and the remake.

This one is done with all the westernised society atmosphere of a comparatively bygone era of ladies and gentlemen, with decorum and more, in an upper strata of wealthy Bengali society that holidayed in Darjeeling regularly, and looked up to education as much as took wealth for granted, all with a platform of the westernised urban social setting that set them up aloft above the ground realities, of not only those less than wealthy but - perhaps more importantly - of those not quite so westernised.

In comparison the remake was set in the sixties post Junglee, yahoo changes that brought in a very overt pursuit of the very unwilling lady by an almost Tarzan cum ape, with the lady eventually giving in to the overtures in terms of romance - still virtuously, of course! And this change was then harder to reconcile with the story that develops.

Here, the quiet but steady devoted candidate for the hand of the beautiful educated modern young woman, and a self confessed fan of her singing, is a role that reveals itself as much more complex, deeper, only on subsequent viewings - when one knows he is more than he has said.

But the real knot remains firm and soul of the theme - and has been dealt with in at least half a dozen films of last two decades or so from US, although with different storylines. Question is, what if one is already committed in a relationship, and then someone new appears who one cannot help falling inexorably in love with?

Here, the said relationship is a childhood marriage that the girl's mother had revolted against, and declared null and void, bringing the family to town and making the girl forget about it in course of education and normal life. But it dies exist, and once the memory is back, it cannot be denied. Legally she coukd free herself, but she finds an inexplicable bond drawing her, and she is uncertain of her duty, the right choice to make.

And then she turns to the old grandmother who had conducted that marriage. The grandmother asks her, what if you do marry the young man you now met, and then you meet someone who attracts you, and you fall in love with him?

That the film is beautifully made, is a bonus, as is the superlative young pair. And the music.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jSuBte1lZWU


The original Agnipariksha where the golden couple of Bengali films had perhaps their first superhit, was a far quieter, deeper flow; since Uttam Kumar himself produced this remake, he probably had a good reason to change it so much.

The title is changed from the original, Agnipariksha, which was a work of literature by the wonderful Bengali author Ashapourna Devi. Whether the title is from the title song with its then very new very modern dance and coutoure, or vice versa, it announces the change of the perspective, as in seeing it as a love affair stemming from a small encounter, rather than a test by fire that the young woman undergoes when realising she was married and still is.

Uttam Kumar produced this remake. Judging from this dance, perhaps he did it to fit in with the then upcoming trend, or perhaps he needed to ascertain his own multifaceted capabilities. But the story suited the quieter and deeper original far more, and that was probably the reason this one didn't do well. Didn't quite gell with the modernisation of the original, the original was deeply rooted in the region it belonged to and had a sedate, demure character even to the modern, but this was yahooed up for presumably the then young audience, and the dilemma of the film wasn't in tune.

Also, this film came in '67, a few years post the high point of this artist's career in RK's  Sangam, and while she did have a couple of hits post Sangam, this role of a young adult virgin bride wasn't likely to go down with the audience after the high drama of her marrying a man who divorced his wife just to marry her.

One recalls the then trend of this variation of draping saree, which was also seen in Sangam. Here, though, she seems to wish to compete with the original of this role, there is a hint of Suchitra Sen in the way she holds herself at times, which was never before or after. They had been together in Devdas by Bimal Roy, before this, and later Suchitra Sen did Aandhi after Vyjayantimala had refused.

An additional delight here is seeing the sweet niece of the veteran Geeta Bali, the  then very young Yogita, who later was a heroine for some years and used the name Bali herself. Those years we had seen her first apoearance in a children's film produced by NFDC, Jawab Aayega, and others including this. But having forgotten this and pretty much most exceot one's general reaction, there are unexpected pleasures in revisiting this film now for a second time.

Wonder who played the young bridegroom that is Uttam Kumar when adult.

The point of difference between original Bengali Agnipariksha and this remake comes immediately at the introduction of the young bride grown up into a woman, introduced here with a very western dance she is doing alone in what is presumably her own home, instead of the staid, demure Suchitra Sen lost in fog on mountain roads of Darjeeling while out for a walk with her relatives, which seems normal occupation for the routine of a summer holiday in their home in hills away from the town house, and she is found by Uttam Kumar who informs her he is a fan, and escorts her home after a song she is happy to sing for him - she has found fame and following as a singer.

Wonder if either of the two main artists really did ski 40:00 - 42:00? Rajendranath on the other hand executed a comic stunt that required great skill, but since he shot often enough before this in Kashmir and is from a Northwest clan, wouldn't be surprising if he did ski well.

The scene of various people's calls, looking for a lost one, echoing in the mountains, is here supposedly in Simla, but judging from the tea garden they suddenly are in instead of a park 43:00 - 43:52 where they were at a picnic, this is shot probably at the Peshok Tea Garden. The two meeting twice and him suddenly breaking into a song are a rude shock, especially all the more so after having seen Agnipariksha with it's very romantic first meeting of the two. Really this yahoofication is half the reason this film failed.

The stage dance performed by the heroine 55:00 -59:00 is well conceived, but as usual with Hindi films, while most of the performance goes on there is no clue just where the stage or the audience is, and the heroine is shown from most angles. What is poetically conceptualised but not quite as well executed is the descent of the heavenly Apsara, Menaka, dancing her way floating down to earth and attempting to free herself of a transparent veil - nice use of something very akin to cellophane but presumably a fabric she could breathe through - that she can be presumably seen through but not touched by a mortal, and then the scene background turning suddenly bright red signifying material Earth as she manages to extricate herself from the veil and the fog vanishes. Too bad the person who did this conceptualising of the stage dance wasn't in charge of the whole film.

A significant portion seems to be missing between the end of the dance and the heroine returning home, what with the inexplicably complete turnabout in her mood and stance. This missing portion is evident since she seems to be holding a greatcoat as she enters what seems her own bedroom, and then the film or this vudeo jumps again to show her enter his home, which seems never locked against intruders. Strangely enough, in the process of attempting returning his overcoat she enters his bedroom, rather than leave it in the empty drawing room. She doesn't look curious, so was it spying for a reason, or just faux pas on part of the director and screenplay? Again, she is humming a song here, the melodious key song to this film, so was this song cut from this video? No, it seems she heard it before he sings it, perhaps it's suggested it's written on the photograph of hers she finds in his bedroom, but not visible to the viewer.

Subsequent turns here make it clear why this film failed- where the original had a straightforward narration of a romance interrupted rudely with a memory returning to haunt the young woman who, in the over a decade interim, had indeed forgotten it, here the wedding hadn't happened so long ago, the bride was fifteen instead of the preteen original, and it's the cousin attempting to hook the eligible guy that heaps guilt on the heroine - but the worst part is the compliance with seemingly requisite regular interruptions with songs, and they are quite disappointing to those familiar with Uttam Kumar's playback being given by the mellifluous Bengal singers rather than the then prevalent voice if yahoo romances.

At 1:36 there is another false turn, where the cousin informs him his beloved is married and he shows a puzzled, shocked reaction that doesn't match the reality - quite unlike the silent and observant, hesitant and stoic hero of the original who is never quite told why she suddenly stops seeing him, but instead wishes to tell her something about himself at one point!

But the much worse part is at the engagement party, interrupted by the manager and accountant of the husband, without whose instructions they wouldn't have dared to humiliate her - and here on the picture spoils as far as the hero is concerned, since he puts her through the humiliation and pain, unnecessary suffering instead of simply disclosing his identity once she has fallen for him.

Later, there's a melodious song - Jeevan Ke Do Raahe Pe Khade Sochate Hain Hum - that never got much popularity, and yet it's the one at the turning point.

The original Agnipariksha had a simpler song in the situation, Ke Tumi Aamaare Daako. It related the whole dilemma, and was shown in the simpler setting of the upper class young woman dressed not her usual upper class sophisticated style but in the simpler way a rural married woman would, and singing to herself at the piano in her home as she's used to - which itself frames the dichotomy well.



Somewhere along the line, having watched the Hindi remake for only the second time, after a gap of half a century, it becomes amply clear why this film was so disliked generally, and why we disliked it in particular. 

For, what was originally a sensitive story about a mother who wishes only the best for her chikdren including her eldest daughter, with determination to educate her and make her free of the shackles that traditions will put her in, and subsequently the dilemma of the daughter about her childhood bridegroom vs her newfound precious love, was in the remake turned into a complete melodrama with the mother a borderline viper and the groom turned lover a questionable guy who woos her in the obnoxious ways that sixties had brought in and then let's loose the social stigma at her at every point, cornering her with tides of social scorn into turning her back on her modern ways and to her husband of the ceremony she went through at fifteen. 

The original is about three women of three generations, and the gentlemen who stand by them. The remake was about telling women they are objects without power or prestige, and exist with honour only in obeying their male owners. 

Was this because the original was Bengali and thus true to India, while the remake was supposed to cater to North and central India, and those were seen as regions adhering to values not of India but those brought in by invading colonisers with their abrahmic creeds? 

This seems to be all the more true, since the finale dialogue with the husband ending it is so opposite in the remake from the original. 

Originally, he says, he wanted her to come to him on her own - and watching it mire than once makes his quiet, reticent, patiently holding himself back, standing by her in all her travails, makes it clear more than any dialogue. 

In the remake, he says he wanted her modern ways wiped out, so she coukd be happy in the old traditional life with him. And he did everything possible that he could, towards this end. 

In that, he fails to consider he was possibly risking her life! 


Responding to a comment below the original yt video about why the film didn't do well, by Ramandeep Gill:- 

"The best movie! I am surprised that why this gem was flopped? uttam kumar looking so handsome, and everybody's performance was great!"  

Didn't quite gell with the modernisation of the original, the original was deeply rooted in the region it belonged to and had a sedate, demure character even to the modern, but this was yahooed up for presumably the then young audience, and the dilemma of the film wasn't in tune. 

Also, this film came in '67, a few years post the high point of this artist's career in RK's  Sangam, and while she did have a couple of hits post Sangam, this role of a young adult virgin bride wasn't likely to go down with the audience after the high drama of her marrying a man who divorced his wife just to marry her. 


Responding to a comment below the original yt video about why she had to make this choice,  by Chamatkaar1947:- 

"Great performances and music! Vyjayantimala's emotional acting is so unguarded and raw! I love it! The music is wonderful as well! However, I don't know if I agree with the message of the movie....I mean, why is it implying that she should be a "proper" indian woman who believes in the meaning of a childhood marriage? Not following such tradition doesn't make her any less of a proud indian woman!" 

That precisely is the question the story, and the films based thereupon, deal with, and its up,to her to make that choice. But notice that in the Hindi remake here, it's not a child marriage - not by the laws as they then were. She was fifteen, and the boy eighteen, when they were married - with consent of adults of the two families, which was completely legal. Remember the '73 marriage of the first superstar of Hindi films, with a fifteen year old one film heroine? That was legal, since her parents were consenting and she was fifteen. 

In this film the father is upset but knows this is done, since Indian tradition does not have alternatives. The mother is modern and tells everyone she will change it. Every option, until the point where the bride makes a choice after growing up, is explored. She isn't just given up. 

The clincher in the original film is where the grandmother asks her, what if you fall in love with yet another person after you marry the one you love now? 

And there are no guarantees about that never happening, as can be seen from the plethora of over half a dozen films in just the last couple of decades, and thousands of real life stories in US and elsewhere in last century or so. 

In the original it isn't finally what anyone else says or thinks, it's up to her. That it's a happy ending is because he had come looking for her, to win her over, in the first place - else she might have changed her mind, if she had not been happy. 


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j56HXFe4qH0 


About Bahu Begum 1967 : Ashok Kumar, Meena Kumari, Pradeep Kumar

Begins with superb visuals.

One recalls the then critiques of this film were mostly a shrugging off, while acknowledging the fine job done by all artists, as another muslim social with cliches galore. We weren't used to watching films in theatre that often, and television - limited then to Delhi - showed films once a week, split over the weekend, watching which was usually a communal affair over at a neighbours, whosoever were welcoming enough. Refrigerators were slightly more common by the time this film came, and telephones remained very rare until cellphones era exploded with India talking nonstop. Later, by the time I had television, cable era was just about beginning, but this film had been one amongst hundreds of others, of those made in past decades that one hadn't seen.

Internet cuts through much and one need not go to the effort even of renting a video. So now one sees this, several decades later, and perspective meanwhile has changed with time, in several dimensions.

For one, this film is one of those that tell of an era gone with time, of a city of Nawab of yore who were struggling with new times, some impoverished and attempting to keep a good face, some still wealthy but with greedy relatives manipulating their lives, and more. Interesting, incidentally, seeing males attired in fine colourful silks one associates with feminine attire, for one thing.

And then of course the whole key, women and men segregated, that leads to so much heartbreak and tragedy, since a romance is of necessity by stealth and one might till the last moment not know one is about to marry the wrong guy. Ordinary young women would give in to fate. This courageous one attempts to confront her paramour and instead finds herself in severely dire circumstances, him having been sent out of town by his conniving uncle to not let go of the trust of the property. She finds herself discarded by the heartbroken father, and is unable to speak to the bridegroom when she tries, the moment isn't opportune and he's in too much of a shock.

So she finds herself in the last possible place a respectable woman would ever step in, and yet, is saved by circumstances and good people, step by step, despite the conniving and evil.



https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P01Kr_2U1QQ

Another copy of the film.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7WtsnF9iiLg

Another copy of the film.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jkbih8vdhrc


Thursday, February 7, 2019

The Accidental Prime Minister

Superb film, with much unknown to general public about the silent PM of India.

For whatever reason, he allowed himself to be used, humiliated, and discarded with not a word of thanks by the so called high command of the party, so much so he was only saved from being blamed for all the humongous scams by being seen as not only unlikely to indulge in scams but a mere mask for the real power, someone who never had any say in actual running of the nation even while he was supposedly the PM of India.

This film, and the book for those who read the book it's based on, changes much of that, by lifting the veil of this living tomb of silence this PM chose to bury himself in, and revealing the reality slightly, about his actually having more of a character and a spine, rather than being a mere scapegoat for no reason whatsoever.

Hence, of course, the wrath of the slaves of the axis DNA headed party, which include most of the so self branded secular media, and thus the spate of negative reviews for this superb film.

Anupam Kher, in the title role, delivers a sterling performance, and the only surprise is to hear him speak at all. Not that the then PM Manmohan Singh never spoke, but those rare occasions when he did gave little if any sense of the person of character and great academic credentials that he was and has been known for; and Anupam Kher's performance changes that. Hence the wrath of the party, the high command thereof, and the fraudulently self branded seculars amongst the media, attempting to crush him.

Akshay Khanna,  superlatively delightful as the narrator. His role of the author and protagonist of this film isn't the first great work by this artist, but it's pretty close to second to his heartrending portrayal in Gandhi My Father, albeit this one is not quite so dark and tragic a character. One nevertheless has a lot of melting moments at the various points where the relationship of the two is personal, from protective to filial to the heartbreaking refusal at the end by the PM to see or acknowledge his one true friend outside his own family.

When the biggest hit of Indian film industry so far, Bahubali, had arrived, the buzz phrase had been "Why did Katappa kill Bahubali?", and it's perhaps far more so at the end of this one when one is left wondering. Why did Manmohan Singh, the then PM of India, cut off his friend of decades, his protective and appreciative friend?   

Thanks to the author for writing this, and the makers for the film.

Superb film, with only one vitally important factor missing - Dr Subramanian Swamy and his role

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-2NxKQfbwVo

in making this story possible at all.

Superb artists.

Responding to a comment below the original YT video by

Gandhi My Father, landmark in Indian cinema.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OLJ78xX7XO8