Les maîtres fous
I really do
not know what to say about this movie. It is one of those occasions where the
Book comes up with a film that just baffles me. Both in relation to the subject
matter and to why this is at all on the list. All I can do is describe what
this is about.
fous is a short film, only half an hour, and supposed to be an anthropological
documentary about a cult in Africa. We start in the city of Accra in Ghana,
which represents colonial African modernity. From here we follow some people
leaving the city into the hinterland and some cultic stage where they take part
in an annual ritual. These are the Hauka. Through the majority of the film
these people will become possessed and imitate their colonial lords in
movements and talk with froth hanging from their mouths and white showing in
their eyes. They will kill and eat a dog raw and generally be a disgusting
sight. Finally they will leave the site and return to their normal life and the
last few minutes is devoted to a presentation of the characters in the normal
affair is vigorously narrated by a French dude, which I assume is Jean Rouch,
the director, himself. He narrates matter-of-factly, but he has an awful lot on
his mind as if this was an hour long piece cooked down and now he is in a hurry
to cover it all. During the trance he seems to be inferring a lot from the
acts, but I have no way of knowing if it is true or if he is making it up as he
two feelings this piece leaves me with is confusion and revulsion. I do not
know why I should watch this and what it means. So, some Africans have a
strange and, frankly, gross cult where they imitate their colonial masters.
Okay. And? I suppose this has some anthropological or ethnographical value, but
outside those circles this looks more like a sideshow, meant to shock and
Is this the
first time someone went into the bush to film a cultic ritual? Or is it some
kind of convoluted anticolonial piece as Wikipedia hint at? I have no idea and
frankly I do not care. I like to travel the world, I like to see other cultures
and experience how big a world we live in, but I did not need to see this
movie. This is just a tick on the List. Tick. Done.
Plyds og Papegøjer
In 2004 the
Coen brothers made a remake of the British comedy ”The Ladykillers”. While not
their greatest movie ever it is a very watchable movie, not just for being a
Coen brother’s film, but because the original story is terrific.
That was my
entry into the movie, knowing and liking the remake, and that of course makes
for high expectations. Add to that that I have been generally fond of the
Ealing comedies of which this one is the last in a box set I bought of those.
Luckily I was not disappointed.
elements to the story is similar to the Coen version, but there are notable
differences, the biggest in my opinion being that this is a British production
taking place in London. That sets a unique tone that you just could not emulate
Wilberforce (wonderfully played by Katie Johnson) is the epitome of a sweet old
lady starting to go slightly cuckoo. She is both adorable and a menace,
politeness itself and obnoxious. When a criminal gang rents a room in her house
they think they have found the perfect dupe to complete their scheme for a brilliant
heist. Half way through the movie they seem to be right, but then things start
to go terribly wrong, not least because of Mrs. Wilberforce.
The gang is
led by Professor Marcus, another one of Alec Guinness wonderful characters. He
truly is a man of a hundred faces and here he is hardly recognizable, but his
voice, oh his voice, it is so distinct. Only Alec Guinness had that voice.
Close your eyes and it is Obi-Wan Kenobi saying “Now, now, Mrs. Wilberforce”. Professor
Marcus is the mastermind and has that air of weird genius about him. His team
consists of the homely Major Courtney (Cecil Parker), big guy “One-Round”
Lawson (Danny Green), hired gun Louis Harvey (Herbert Lom) and Peter Sellers in
one of his early roles as the hustler Harry Robinson.
pretends to be a practicing string quintet while planning and carrying of an
elegant heist. The brilliant part of the theft is that it is Mrs. Wilberforce who
in all innocence will drive the money home thinking she is picking up a package
for Professor Marcus. This all works beautifully until they have to leave with
their money and a silly accident reveal to the old lady that something is very
much amiss. The gang realize they have to shut her up, but these tough
criminals turn out to be absolutely terrible at killing old ladies. Instead they
end up killing each other off one by one (ooops, spoiler, unless you saw the
are terrific. The scheme is both elegant and crazy as such things always are in
movies, but it is in the interaction with Mrs. Wilberforce that we get all the
laughs. She is a hoot. In fact the second half is a riot and my favorite scene
of the entire movie is the tea party of cackling old ladies in Mrs. Wilberforce
living room with the gang as unwilling entertainment. Somehow this scene could
only have been made in England.
It is not
difficult to see why the Coen Brothers wanted to make a remake of this movie.
There are many classic elements to it and so many hilarious avenues that can be
explored and transplanting the story to the American South they could build a
different tone on the same ideas. I think I prefer the original though and that
is not just because it is the original, but because it works so well in the
triangle of Katie Johnson, Alec Guinness and the British tone.
the earlier Ealing comedies this one is in color and that makes it feel
immensely more modern and ultimately accessible to a modern audience. It is not
the glorious, in your face Technicolor that Powell and Pressburger used in the forties,
but a more subdued coloring that fits the grimy and half derelict set around
Kings Cross station and Mrs. Wilberforce’s house. Definitely a good choice.
I was quite
surprised to find that Peter Sellers played a part in this movie. I did not
recognize him, but that is primarily because his character is secondary to the
story, hardly more than a henchman. Still it is great to see another great
actor make his appearance in movies.
The List is
short on good comedies and often they feel dated and flat to a modern audience.
So much more enjoyment when we get one that still holds up. Yes, this one is
terrific and if you only saw the remake this is one to catch.
would you like you tea now?
already mentioned in my last post I have reached another milestone. I now have
300 movies under the belt.
this is very much a matter of definition. In reality it is a bit more since I
have also reviewed a number of Danish movies from the Danish version of the
list plus a few movies ahead of the 300 mark plus a few additional movies, but
that is all in the details. On the count that I keep I have done 300.
me solid in the mid-fifties, about nine years after the 200 movie mark. Yes,
time-wise it is slow going now and the List fills up every year with a broad
spectrum of movies from every genre and many nationalities. I think I counted
twenty movies for 1955 alone.
taken me almost six years to get this far so with some quick extrapolation it
will be… eighteen years until I am done assuming the List does not grow much
above 1200 movies. I prefer not to think about that. So far I am still enjoying
myself and every period seem to have something special to offer. The past
hundred movie period was particularly strong on film noir, but that is almost
over now. Instead the fifties seems to be the heyday of westerns, whether they
be American or Japanese.
reached the 200 movie mark I introduced a special award with the intention of
following up every time I reached another hundred movies, but today we have a
major power loss and I am writing in darkness using the last battery juice left
in the computer, so it is going to be a short one. The obvious category is:
This is a
very strong field and I love all these movie. However at gunpoint I would pick
Out of the Past as the movie that tells you exactly what a film noir is. Up to
this points movies were trying to home in on the theme, afterwards they were
trying to build onto or vary the themes, but in Out of the Past everything was
Well, it is
totally noir here with me in a town entirely blackened out with only candles
and the light of the screen to keep the darkness at bay. That must be enough for now.
Højde 24 Svarer Ikke
this is movie number 300 for me! And somehow it is quite fitting that this
should be the first Israeli film on the List. Why? Well, that happens to be the
place I live these days and so I have been very curious to find out what this old
film would be like. A special treat, if you like.
I am not
Israeli and not even Jewish (though my wife is) so I do not have the same
personal connection to this film as I have to Danish movies and that is
probably a good thing. In this corner of the world everything is political, and
politics has a nasty slant here in directions considered unsavory in most other
parts of the world. In my personal opinion religion and nationalism has an
uncanny ability to screw with people’s minds and the combination of the two is
a real disconnect from reality.
It is not
because I have some sudden urge to declare my position, but because those are
the themes of “Hill 24 Doesn’t Answer”. It is very much about the Israeli
narrative on its origin, how it was born out of a struggle for survival as a
refuge for a hunted people. That gives it both a nationalistic and,
incidentally, a religious slant. As an outside observer it is difficult not to
see this as a propaganda piece, but is seems intended inward as a national
narrative and so it tell us something about how the Israeli see themselves and
their country. That makes it interesting even if you do not buy into the story
copy I was able to find was a very poor version on YouTube. It had blurry
pictures and poor sound and a lot of the experience was definitely lost, which
is really too bad. As much of the movie is filmed on location the pictures
themselves are interesting, but that was mostly lost. Also this version came
with three sets of subtitles, one on top of the other, making them hard to
follow. Thankfully most is in English and to my own surprise I was actually
able to follow most of the Hebrew dialogue so I did not suffer too badly.
There is a
main line is the story following four soldiers going out to defend a hill (Hill
24) outside of Jerusalem. On their way three of the soldiers tell the story of
how they came to be there.
Finnegan (Edward Mulhare) was an Irish soldier in the British army who after
the war became a policeman under the British mandate in Haifa. Officially
assigned to spy on the Jewish underground he falls in love with his mark, a
Jewish girl called Miriam (Haya Harareet) and so after his discharge he returns
to be with her and through her enroll in the proto-Israeli army. His reason for
fighting is for her.
Goodman (Michael Wager) was an American tourist (or journalist, I am not sure)
who happened to be in the country at the time of independence and so enrolled
almost by accident. He is Jewish, but his motivations are vague and when he
gets injured he starts wondering, not unreasonably, what on Earth he is doing
in this war. A rabbi tries to explain it through religious arguments and Allan,
again quite reasonably, calls bullshit. Unfortunately (in my opinion) the rabbi
manages to convert Allan to a believer and when he is evacuated from the old
town of Jerusalem he is filled with religious zeal.
David Airam (Arik Lavie) tells his story. This one confused me, but I guess the
gist of is that earlier in the fighting he was battling some Egyptians in the
Negev and ends up in a one-on-one with an Egyptian soldier who turns out to be
German and not just that, but a heart and mind Nazi, not yet finished killing
Jews. I suppose that means that he is fighting against that undefined external
enemy that is always out to kill the Jew.
we have it. The three soldiers come from all over the world to fight this war
for their loved ones, for national religious reasons and to protect themselves
from the ever present external enemy. That is exactly the national narrative.
There is also a woman in the group, but we do not get her story, expect that
she is a local. Her role is partly to show that women were also fighting this
war (something you are constantly reminded of when you see teenage girls with
big guns over their shoulder) and to be the rooting in the land when she is
found on the hill holding a flag in her hand.
soldiers die on the hill holding it against attack, but their presence secures
the hill as Israeli territory and so the land was bought with their blood,
which again fits the narrative.
This is not
a movie that tries to explain the conflict and it is certainly not taking a
helicopter view of the different parties, but that is not its objective either.
Where the movie is best it is trying to explain what makes these people, and
thus most people who took part in it on the Israeli side, fight this war.
the opposition is largely ignored there are a number of scenes that offer food
for thought. There are the boats landing on the beach with worn out refugee
flooding into the country. That picture carries an uncanny resemblance to
present day Syrian refugees landing on the Greek Islands or swarming over the
Hungarian borders. The British are mounting a futile attempt at stopping them
as the EU tries today but they are overwhelmed. Meanwhile the locals are
increasingly upset with the newcomers and many wows to kick them out as the
Arab explains to Allan Goodman at the hotel pool. There is an insight there
into some fundamental problems that may have been largely ignored by a viewer
at the time, especially one belonging to the target group, but 60 years down
the line we are, well most people are, more aware the fundamental problems of
Well, I can
talk for hours on the issue, but that has little to do with the movie. Suffice
to say that I belong to the “work it out” camp rather than the “I am right and
you are an idiot” camp dominating this particular conflict.
sad moment near the end of the movie where the narrator proclaims that peace
have been brought to Jerusalem. How I wish that was the case. On Monday I am
going to Jerusalem for a three day conference and my wife is urging me not to go
because it is not really safe. So much for peace in Jerusalem.
En Mand Steg af Toget
starting to get a bit nervous about 1955. So far the quality have markedly
dropped from 1954, but then came along “Bad Day at Black Rock” and we are back
This is a
western transplanted to 1945 and a film noir in beautiful color. Already sounds
It is a lot
more than just that.
(Spencer Tracy as John Macreedy) gets off the train in a tiny hamlet in the
middle of nowhere. We know absolutely nothing about him. Apparently this is the
first time the train stops here in four years and you might expect the locals
to be curious. They are, for sure, but more than that they are terrified.
Macreedy goes about his business, but meets only hostility. This only deepens
when he explains that he is looking for a Japanese-American called Komoko.
Obviously the villagers is afraid of this stranger, but why? What are they
There is a
most delicious buildup of tension in Bad Day and it is only strengthened by the
very limited information we get. That means that we are left to guessing as to
who this guy Macreedy is (is he a police investigator?) as well as the other
way round, what dark secret are the villagers trying to keep. It very much
reminds me of later Sergio Leone Westerns in that sense, but actually points
straight back to the noir tradition. Disaster is looming and no amount of
coolness can avert that.
opposition to Macreedy is led by Reno Smith (Robert Ryan), a dominating
character who seems to rule the village by sheer intimidation. As the story
progress his façade starts to crack and there is a madness inside. His henchmen
Coley and Hector are played by Ernest Borgnine and Lee Marvin and those names
should generate some respect. They are perfect as badass henchmen. Borgnine the
sadistic brute and Marvin the clever intimidator. There is violence in the air,
nasty nasty violence.
are opposed to Smith. Walter Brennan is as usual great as doc Velie, as
comfortable village doctor who once decided to mind his own business, but finds
inspiration in Macreedy to choose sides. The Sheriff (Dean Jagger) is a push
over who at best is an unreliable ally. And that is about it.
Macreedy has visited the burned down homestead of Komoko it is clear that he is
not allowed to leave. By nightfall they will come for him…
I loved “Bad
Day at Black Rock”. It may be a short film, but it is intense. Instead of
outright violence, of which there is remarkably little, it lives on tension and
intimidation. It is hot in Black Rock. Dusty and dry, but that is not the only
reason Macreedy is breaking a sweat. In this sense the colors are actually
helping because the filters used amplify the dusty heat of the place. Black
Rock is not the place you want to be.
If I should
make a complaint then the resolution is a bit of an anticlimax after the
tension. Halfway through we guessed what really happened four years ago in
Black Rock and we are not surprised that this is indeed what happened. After
all this is still 1955, it is not yet time for the big plot twists.
But I can
live with that, it is a small detail.
cinematic qualities of this film there are at least two other elements of
interest. Right off the bat this movie is an obvious criticism of allowing guns
in the hands of unstable characters. The villagers seem ready to defend their “way
of life” at gunpoint, a way of life which basically means shooting those they
do not like. I know there are plenty movies like that, but here an armed group
has effectively sidelined the law.
is an argument against the racism, specifically against Japanese-Americans who
were vilified after Pearl Harbour. It is I think the first American movie after
the war to place a Japanese as victim.
only to say, if you have only seen Spencer Tracy in silly comedies this is the
movie to watch. Tracy is awesome here, just awesome.
Guys and Dolls
Frank Sinatra, Jean Simmons and Marlon Brando together in a movie. That sounds
awesome, does it not? How can that possibly go wrong? Impossible as it sounds
admit I am not your target group for musicals, but occasionally they do work
for me, some are even great. This is usually when the musical elements become a
natural part of the movie, supporting it rather than the other way round. In
“Guys and Dolls” the musical elements feels like sabotage, something completely
at odds with the movie, with the result that something that could have been
can hear alarm bells going off. This is a famous Broadway musical and one this
still plays on many venues worldwide to this day, it has proven its worth and
you, Mr. Sorensen, is just an idiot. No, I have not seen the Broadway version,
in fact I never saw the musical before, it was never a part of my upbringing,
so, yeah, I am an ignorant idiot. My point here is that this is likely a
musical that ticks all the buttons for a musical fan, but if you are part of
the ignorant outside world some of those same issues are the very problems of
Dolls” the movie really consists of three elements. There is the surrounding
story, which is actually pretty good. Without the musical elements there is a
nice and interesting comedy here. Sinatra, Simmons, Brando, Vivian Blaine and
the supporting cast are all very good, funny and well rounded. On its own I would have seen this movie.
is also okay. Though I knew none of the songs up front some of them are hanging
on in my head and that is always a good sign. Having Frank Sinatra sing them
can never be a bad thing either. Yeah, I could listen to the soundtrack no
is a problem, definitely, but I never really like dancing in movies anyway.
Here the dancing is particularly annoying, but that is not the real problem.
is that these three elements completely work against each other. Except for a
few songs the singing and particularly the dancing breaks the spell of the
story and even in some of the cases where it could have worked like he Havana
scene the stylistic element takes the scene out of its context. To me it feels
like a comedy, a concert and a modern dancing show has been thrown together
with little consideration if this would actually work. The result is that I lose all three of them.
If we zoom
in on the comedy, as I chose to call the surrounding story, there are two
tracks which are both funny and interesting. Nathan Detroit (Sinatra) is the
operator of a floating crap game who is in trouble because the police is
breathing down his neck while his customers are pushing for a venue and his
girlfriend through 14 years, Adelaide (Vivian Blaine), is desperately waiting
for a wedding. The second track follows big-roller Sky Masterson (Marlon
Brando) wooing a salvation army girl (Jean Simmons), first as part of a bet
with Nathan Detroit, later out of genuine love. Both are on a bumpy road with
potential for both drama and comedy and we do get some of both, though mostly
enjoy watching and listening to Frank Sinatra. In 1955 he is at his peak both
on acting and singing and he nails that role on both accounts. Marlon Brando
carried that very sexual aura around him and here he can give it full throttle.
Again that is a joy to watch. Jean Simmons I remember mostly for her roles in
English movies in the forties and I have this image of her from “Black
Narcissus”. As the prudish Sarah Brown she is hardly recognizable, but loosing
up in Havana we get the real woman behind her and she is a match for Brando.
would have liked that movie.
gangster-like crap players dance? Do salsa dancers in Havana dance with their
head on their woman’s bosom? Do pedestrians on Broadway dance ballet down the
street? In “Love my Tonight” the life of Parisians was beautifully incorporated
into a song. In “Guys and Dolls” people suddenly do things that would make fish
in pants look normal. In a dance show it is probably okay, in a concert it is
okay, but it ruins the movie.
movie proper I went through an hour’s worth of self-congratulation in the extra
material and the only thing it really did for me was convince me that there are
a lot of people out there who likes this musical very much. I am very sorry
guys if I am stepping on some toes. Apparently I belong to a small minority who
fails to see the genius in bringing these three elements together.
briefly returns to 1954 to catch up on an extra movie. When I went through the
year I noticed that the movie “Sabrina” was not on the List, but was generally
highly regarded. Being an Audrey Hepburn fan this seemed like a miss so I
belatedly found that one and watched it between my 1955 movies.
this is a pleasant movie. So pleasant in fact I will, again, break my rule of
only reviewing List movies and add it to my Honorable Mentions list. Frankly
this is a movie that belongs in the 1001 book and I consider it a terrible
oversight that it was not included in the 10th edition revision that
was supposed to fix those problems. 1954 was a very strong year and there are better
movies this year than “Sabrina”, but to be middle of the field of 1954 List
movies is also quite an achievement.
was remade in the mid-nineties with Julia Ormond and Harrison Ford (before he
turned grumpy) in the leading roles and I know the story from that movie. To
see the original movie however is like an epiphany on how this story should be
told. There are four reasons for that:
Hepburn, Humphrey Bogart, William Holden and Billy Wilder.
With such a
team I do not really care what the movie is about, this can only be a winner.
mention I am an Audrey Hepburn fan?
smiles it is like watching the sun rise. I am also proud to say that my wife
carry some resemblance to Audrey Hepburn, I wonder if that is a coincidence… If
I continue on this track this will turn very embarrassing.
Holden is the younger Larrabee brother David who is a lazy playboy with a
rubber spine and no resistance to pretty women. His brother Linus (Humphrey
Bogart) is the opposite character, on the surface a hardworking business man
with cunning but also integrity. Beneath that surface however lurks a romantic
(Hepburn) is the daughter of the Larrabee’s chauffeur and hopelessly in love
with David since childhood. She watches him from afar and dreams of being one
of his women. Two years in Paris transforms this Cinderella into a
sophisticated princess and when she returns it is to get David.
however beats her to it and in his usual style he falls head over heels in love
with her. This is not so good because David is about to be married for the
fourth time and a big 20m$ merger depends on it. Linus is not going to watch
this deal go out the window so he works out a scheme to make Sabrina fall for
him instead and then send her off to France again. He did not count on that he
would fall in love with her in the process.
This is not
a very complex story, in fact it is quite light, but that is not really
important. Billy Wilder elegantly turned this story that could easily have been
a corny rom-com or a painful triangle drama, into a charming comedy. The comedic
elements are never laugh out loud funny, but small nudges at the right places
to disarm a crisis or to charm the socks off the viewers. It is the right
remark at the right time and that little wink that makes us smile. This is a
delicate balance and few people mastered that balance like Billy Wilder. That man
could direct anything, but the way he could insert something funny at just the
right time is legendary.
I am also
not a big fan of some of the sensibilities in the movie. Sabrina is on the
wrong track to begin with. That infatuation she has is doomed from the
beginning, not because David belongs to society’s elite and Sabrina does not,
but because the David Sabrina loves is a product of her fantasy and bears no resemblance
to the real David. When she finally would discover what a spineless jerk he
really is she would get sadly disappointed. That is sort of the point with the
story. Even when Linus comes into the picture and she eventually learn that she
has been manipulated she soon returns to dreamland when he shows up on the boat
to France. This is a celebration of the romantic dream, but it is on dangerous ground.
what do I care. This movie is so sweet, so well played and so well directed
that they could have played bowling for ninety minutes if they wanted. The cast
is just perfect. I had some reservations with Humphrey Bogart as a romantic
lead, but he did beautifully. He may be a bit old for the role and the age gap
between Bogart and Hepburn is disconcerting, but when you ignore this he
becomes quite believable.
not be up there with “Roman Holiday”, but it is a pleasant movie nonetheless. A
good time with great actors and a movie I would not mind to watch again. Highly
Sangen om Vejen
I am back
from yet another trip, this time back good ol’ Denmark, and the movie I brought
for this voyage was “Pather Panchali”.
think of Indian movies I think of Bollywood. Something with a lot of formation
dancing, a romantic story that is far-fetched at best, some divine intervention
and a number of illogical and certainly foreign plot moves that just leaves me
baffled. In short I am not a fan of Bollywood. The prospect of an old Indian
movie as the next item on the List was therefore not exactly something that
excited me, in fact dread may be a much better descriptor for my mental state
going into “Pather Panchali”.
surprise when I realized this has nothing to do with Bollywood and could hardly
be less Indian in terms of style. At least not the India I know and (dis)like.
tells that the director, Satyajit Ray, was very inspired by European
filmmaking, particularly the Italian school of neorealism and I can believe
that. Had somebody told me this had been made by De Sica or Rossellini I would
bought that without blinking. “Panther Panchali” has the feel of a documentary
where the camera simply follow an Indian family and somebody lost the track
with the narrator. A subtitle of the film could very well be “Life and Death in
Italian Neorealism we are as close to reality as possible and it pulls no
punches in describing the conditions out there in the villages and the
hardships people go through. Although we follow a particular family and their
tragedy (again Italian Neorealism…) the generalization is never far away.
Nothing here is uncommon and it has happened countless times before and since.
As such the political agenda is quite obvious with the difference that in India
you do not need to use propaganda, you just describe reality, which in itself
is a departure from Bollywood.
itself is almost ridiculously simply because there is hardly anything you would
call a progressing plot. We simply follow a family. The mother Sarbajaya Roy (Karuna
Banerjee) is the glue that keeps the family together. She is constantly
concerned with the financial state of the family (for good reason) and hovering
over their daughter Durga (Runki Banerjee / Uma Dasgupta) who is a free spirit
poorly fitted for the strictness of female life in rural India. The father,
Harihar (Kanu Banerjee) is their only source of income, but he is even more of
a dreamer than their daughter. He is sort of intellectual and perform religious
rites and do accounting while he dreams of writing plays, but it is difficult
for him to keep a job and get paid for those he does get. Income is therefore
an uncertainty and throughout the movie it dwindles into nothing when Harihar
travels for an extended period to find work.
beginning of the movie they get a little boy, Apu (Subir Banerjee) whom both
parents dote on, usually at the expense of their daughter. This is a fixture
throughout the movie. Another one is an old woman who wanders around and
usually stays with the family. She is the only one to dote on Durga, but the
mother repeatedly send her on her way. That continues till she eventually dies.
Panchali” has a lot to offer as a documentary and its topic makes it political,
but as entertainment it is thin. I do get strangely fascinated by watching this
very different Indian life unfold and it is difficult not to feel sorry for the
family, but with a running time of over two hours it is very passive and
frankly a bit dull. It helps to chop it up in parts, but you could be fairly certain
that the next segment would be much like the past segment, except that the
family would be a bit poorer and the troubles would be piling up some more.
I kept asking myself was who are the good guys and who are the bad ones? The
absent father who is miserable at bringing home funds, but keeps at his airy
plans? The mother who is so frustrated with Durga that she likely pushed her to
her death as she did the old woman? Or Durga who actually did steal and wanders
off instead of working? Well, I believe none of them. Everybody are behaving
more or less like normal people would with the strengths and weaknesses we all
have. Their downfall were due to structural problems in India, cultural and
economic, and that again brings it back to politics.
I would say that I was very happy this was not Bollywood and that as a document
this is an excellent movie. As entertainment this is dull and tragic with very
little relief. I doubt I would be watching it again but for anybody with in interest
in India this may deserve a viewing.