I'm sorry to say this movie is just ridiculous. I started out not expecting anything either way, good or bad. When the movie started it looked very good, namely the whole visual look and feel (photography, sets, colours, costumes, etc.) and the tone of realism in the denouements -- as opposed to feel-good or happy outcomes at every available opportunity -- seemed to promise a lot. That was until both kids grew up. Then the nonsense started.
The simple test that this movie/story fails is: If a boy and a girl were to start out in the time and place where this movie starts i.e. in pre-Independence Bengal, over the next 60 years, how many of the events+people are likely to have evolved as portrayed in the movie? Having lived in India nearly all my life and seeing poor people all around, and having read at least some of the history of India and being aware of the social realities and their evolution in different parts of the country, I am compelled to say that this movie has got it horribly wrong. To illustrate, 1) The 2 lead actors seem grossly miscast for the roles they play. For a child labourer who slaved at manual labour, and for a girl who was initiated into prostitution before she was 10 years old and spent over a decade there, both the actors come across as very very educated. Not only do they never get under the skin of those characters, I felt that it was never expected of them, that they were never meant/expected to do so. The boy goes on to speak flawless English (simple, but flawless), and the girl metamorphoses into a polished middle-class housewife after spending 10 years in a brothel. And mind you, all this is happening in the '60s in Bengal. 2) The single biggest departure from reality is the ease and the nature of the girl's departure from the brothel: the Madam who handles her marries her off to an eligible bachelor, telling her that he is a "dream husband". It doesn't need much knowledge of how prostitution operates in India and in the world in general (read newspapers esp. the crime reports and the occasional news analysis article, & reports by NGOs, & books by social workers, & watch documentaries such as "Born into brothels") to know that this is next to impossible. Also, while a prostitute may have choice, she hardly gets to act like a diva, and a paying customer wouldn't court her like he would a lady in his social circle. Once again, do not we're talking about '60s Bengal.
Some might rebut by saying that the focus is on the love story and how the female protagonist is hard done by; all the other details are irrelevant. But if two individuals couldn't possibly have gone through those times and places to emerge as portrayed, then everything rings hollow, demanding a suspension of disbelief similar to what stereotypical Bollywood fare demands. Some might argue that the emotions and their dynamics are universal, so time and place don;t really matter. But if a Customs officer would never marry a prostitute, and a brothel madam would not let her breadwinner leave, then where is the room for the dynamics to play out?
I have to agree with the reviewer who said that this movie has nothing to do with India. I'd go some distance further and say that this story was actually a perfect fit for a European or US social environment, and was lazily transplanted to India. It could still have been acceptable were it set in post-liberalisation India, but to set THIS story in pre-Independence India is simply moronic. And also, what initially struck me as realism is, in the end, perhaps better described as "third-world pathos" (hat-tip to comeau for his review). For a better portrayal of similar time+place and the problems therein, one is better off watching movies by Shyam Benegal and Govind Nihalani (Ankur, Nishant, Manthan, Ardh Satya, Aakrosh, etc.)
The simple test that this movie/story fails is: If a boy and a girl were to start out in the time and place where this movie starts i.e. in pre-Independence Bengal, over the next 60 years, how many of the events+people are likely to have evolved as portrayed in the movie? Having lived in India nearly all my life and seeing poor people all around, and having read at least some of the history of India and being aware of the social realities and their evolution in different parts of the country, I am compelled to say that this movie has got it horribly wrong. To illustrate, 1) The 2 lead actors seem grossly miscast for the roles they play. For a child labourer who slaved at manual labour, and for a girl who was initiated into prostitution before she was 10 years old and spent over a decade there, both the actors come across as very very educated. Not only do they never get under the skin of those characters, I felt that it was never expected of them, that they were never meant/expected to do so. The boy goes on to speak flawless English (simple, but flawless), and the girl metamorphoses into a polished middle-class housewife after spending 10 years in a brothel. And mind you, all this is happening in the '60s in Bengal. 2) The single biggest departure from reality is the ease and the nature of the girl's departure from the brothel: the Madam who handles her marries her off to an eligible bachelor, telling her that he is a "dream husband". It doesn't need much knowledge of how prostitution operates in India and in the world in general (read newspapers esp. the crime reports and the occasional news analysis article, & reports by NGOs, & books by social workers, & watch documentaries such as "Born into brothels") to know that this is next to impossible. Also, while a prostitute may have choice, she hardly gets to act like a diva, and a paying customer wouldn't court her like he would a lady in his social circle. Once again, do not we're talking about '60s Bengal.
Some might rebut by saying that the focus is on the love story and how the female protagonist is hard done by; all the other details are irrelevant. But if two individuals couldn't possibly have gone through those times and places to emerge as portrayed, then everything rings hollow, demanding a suspension of disbelief similar to what stereotypical Bollywood fare demands. Some might argue that the emotions and their dynamics are universal, so time and place don;t really matter. But if a Customs officer would never marry a prostitute, and a brothel madam would not let her breadwinner leave, then where is the room for the dynamics to play out?
I have to agree with the reviewer who said that this movie has nothing to do with India. I'd go some distance further and say that this story was actually a perfect fit for a European or US social environment, and was lazily transplanted to India. It could still have been acceptable were it set in post-liberalisation India, but to set THIS story in pre-Independence India is simply moronic. And also, what initially struck me as realism is, in the end, perhaps better described as "third-world pathos" (hat-tip to comeau for his review). For a better portrayal of similar time+place and the problems therein, one is better off watching movies by Shyam Benegal and Govind Nihalani (Ankur, Nishant, Manthan, Ardh Satya, Aakrosh, etc.)