-->

BANNER

24 May 2013

Memories in March (2011)

2011
Directed by: Sanjoy Nag
Music: Debajyoti Mishra
Starring: Deepti Naval, Rituparno Ghosh, Raima Sen
This is another of the films that was recommended to me a long time ago by a friend whose taste runs similar to mine. I put it on my list of 'to-watch' films, and then, with one thing and the other, never got around to watching it until recently. I did think about watching it many times, but themes of death and loss were hard for me at the time. Eventually, I did watch it, and I'm glad I did.

Babu/Siddharth calls his mother, Arti (Deepti Naval) to talk to her about a party that evening. His advertising agency has won six awards, and he is hoping that he is one of the lucky ones. He signs off saying he will call her later that night; only, fate has other plans.
 
His voice still rings in his mother's ears as she travels to Calcutta the next morning. She is met by her son's colleague, Sahana Choudhary (Raima Sen) who takes her to the crematorium where her other co-workers have assembled.  
There, she is introduced to Ornab Mitra, the creative director of the agency where her son worked. After the funeral, he drops her to Siddharth's house. Her grief is rigidly under control and the conversation is as awkward between the two strangers, as are the silences. He hands her Siddharth's belongings including his cell phone and laptop, and promises to send her the car for her use the next day.

Siddharth is everywhere - in her memories of his calls and his letters, in his belongings spread around his house, in other people's narratives. She is alone with him, and her grief, and her unanswered questions regarding his death.
The next day, when Sahana arrives with lunch, she provides some answers. That Siddharth had imbibed too much at the office party that night, they were all high... Arti can make no sense of it all. It was an office affair; shouldn't there have been some decorum? How did his friends allow him to drive home alone? Sahana resents that accusation - there were three office cars waiting to drop them all back home. Siddharth insisted on driving home despite their warnings.  

Arti asks to be taken to the accident spot and Sahana takes her; there, she bursts out with questions that plague her. What was Siddharth wearing that night? What was his hurry? At 2 in the morning, the roads would have been empty. How often had she warned him, go slow, go slow. He never listened, and now...

Ornab meets them there, and it is through him that Arti gets her ex-husband's phone number. No one has yet informed him of his son's death. 

The next morning, Arti goes to the agency. There, she signs his insurance papers (she is the nominee), and is taken to his desk. Unfortunately for her, it has already been assigned to a new copywriter. She handles that with characteristic restraint, but is taken aback when Ornab asks her for a day to hand over Siddharth's personal belongings, including the pictures on his softboard. When she breaks down, Ornab tells her she is being extremely melodramatic. A distraught Arti leaves the office, followed by Sahana. Arti's anger leads to a revelation that is even more shocking to her than her son's death. Siddharth and Ornab were lovers.

She is almost in denial at first. "Do you know how many girls used to drool over him in Delhi?" she asks Sahana. "Yes, but did he drool back?" Sahana asks. "No, probably because he felt they were not up to the mark." 

Sahana shares another bit of personal information. When Siddharth first joined the office she had had a huge crush on him. Everyone knew, including Siddharth, but he never responded. Arti is sure that Sahana should have waited, for after all, these things take time. Sahana demurs. She did wait. Until, one day, three months later, Siddharth took her out to dinner, and told her about Ornab. Arti is shocked. Her son, Siddharth, actually said that?!
The next morning, Ornab comes to visit her, bringing with him Siddharth's belongings. The silence stretches awkwardly until Arti breaks it by accusing Ornab of seducing her son. She is taken aback when Ornab asks her what she would say if he told her it was the other way around.  Her accusations rankle nevertheless, especially when she accuses him of having deserted her son after he had had his fun. His outburst as he leaves gives Arti a glimpse into his never ending pain.

Later that night, as she looks through Siddharth's phone, she comes across a message he had composed about his relationship with Ornab, but never sent. In it, he confesses to drafting and redrafting the message but never actually sending it because he is afraid of upsetting her.

When Ornab comes the next day to hand over Siddharth's passbook and to take his bag back, she invites him in. Very reluctantly, he agrees, but it is not as he fears. There is a definite thaw, even though she is striving to come to terms with this new knowledge.  
In a series of conversations and dinners together, she comes to understand Ornab better, and through him, her Siddharth; and even though there are squabbles and disagreements and sadness, there is also laughter and shared warmth. To the extent that they are able to joke about Arti not having to seduce Ornab, and how she could have 'normalised' them when Ornab visited her with Siddharth as they had intended to, before the latter died.
Finally, it is time for her to leave, and as Ornab writes on Siddharth's FaceBook account, "If I have to go away, can I leave a little bit of me with you?" 
It is perhaps only human to respond to tales of loss. Made mostly in English (with Hindi and a bit of Bengali, thrown in), Memories in March  is as much an ode to love and loss, as it is about wanting to be accepted by a society that sees you as deviant for just being yourself.  

Memories in March deals with one character's homosexuality, and another's coming to terms with it, even though she has no way of getting answers. It deals with the initial shock and grief of knowing that someone you love is 'different', of learning that what you thought of as an aberration that can be cured, is in fact, natural, and as valid as any relationship that 'normal' people have, of accepting that homosexuality is just another form of sexual orientation - not 'different', not 'a choice', certainly not a 'lifestyle'.    

The theme of homosexuality in Hindi films is not unknown. Unfortunately, most films that deal with this theme, either play it for laughs, or use it for titillation/shock value. It is a rare film (Onir's My Brother Nikhil comes to mind) that deals with it as normal, a sexual orientation that just is. 

An almost-lyrical script (Rituparno Ghosh himself), a sensitive, sparse direction (Sanjoy Nag), and a really wonderful score (lovely songs!) is elevated by three consummate performances - Deepti Naval, as the mother who has to deal not only with her son's death, but also the unexpected (and to her, shocking) revelation about his love life; Raima Sen, the girl who loved the son intensely but has to deal with rejection; and lastly, Rituparno Ghosh as the son's mentor and lover. 

One of the few openly gay celebrities in films, Rituparno fits snugly into the skin of Ornab. He is a reasonably competent actor most times, and as Ornab, there are flashes of brilliance. Especially the scene where he breaks down for the first time. As he refuses to give Arti her own picture back, he confesses that it is through the snapshot that he first 'met' his Siddharth's mother. He knows all about her - where she studied, what she is, how she wears long-sleeved blouses and loves Tussar saris... he will keep the picture because it is of his Siddharth's mother, and because while she looks like Arti, she is not her. She is much more gracious than Arti can ever hope to be.

Deepti/Aarti, who was very close to her son, Siddharth, is shocked that he had kept something so important from her. Like all mothers who assume that their sons (and daughters) are straight until they come out as gay, she too wishes that she had known about her son's sexual preferences before - so she could have had him treated. The reaction is normal, but saddening. (Why is this still such a prevalent attitude?) It is even more frightening, perhaps, because she is educated. So when she asks Ornab whether it was her negligence that led to Siddharth's 'abnormality', you flinch. However, as she herself admits, she is a very conservative woman.

Deepti Naval's performance is absolutely mesmerising. She is so contained, so repressed almost; it's only her eyes that give away the depth of her grief. 
 Watch the scene where she finally breaks down in private, almost hiding her tears even from her own self. (Was it very cold, Babu, with all that ice? she asks; her son hated the cold.) It makes you mourn her disappearance from acting. While Raima plays the catalyst who brings out hitherto hidden secrets into the open, it is Deepti's Aarti and Rituparno's Ornab who are trapped together in a dance between a shared sense of loss and a resentment for what was not shared. 
The film is restrained, perhaps too restrained for an audience that is used to seeing emotions overflow the screen. Even the awkward relationship between the mother, and the son's lover is handled with just the right touch. Siddharth (a character who never appears on screen, but still pervades the entire movie) is dead, and they have all loved him in their own ways. So when Raima's Sahana breaks the wall of secrecy, everything blows open at once. (It is a very poignant scene, more so for what is left implied than what is said.) 

The film unfolds at its own pace, each scene delicately detailed. Not everything is shown, but it is all the more powerful for being implied. It is almost as if the film is building a glass wall around the characters' and their loss - we are but mute spectators, and when the grief does explode on screen, albeit rarely, the shock we feel is even greater. There is a scene where Ornab asks Arti what is more unacceptable - that Siddharth is no more, or that he was gay. Arti is conflicted - perhaps it is the fact that he never told her even though they were so close. And however hard she tries to understand, she doesn't think she could ever come to terms with the fact that her son was gay. It subtly underlines just how much gays need their families' acceptance, even more than they need society's. The pathos is as constrained as the performances are, and it is to the actors' credit that they brought out the delicate nuances with such effect.

Memories in March  is about the detritus that death leaves behind. It makes you question beliefs that have been enshrined in stone - this is what relationships are, this is what they should be... those beliefs cry out to be destroyed. With all its flaws (and yes, there are a few), Memories in March is a film worth watching for its realistic and sensitive portrayal of a relationship that sadly, even today, is considered outside the norm. Thankfully, that is changing. Too slowly perhaps for the many homosexuals out there who are still forced to hide who and what they are, but change is happening. And films like Memories in March are important in that they force society to see homosexuals as no different from them. Through its characters, and their interactions with each other, the film attempts to address (and redress) existing gay stereotypes and gender roles and the rampant homophobia that prevents gays from leading lives that are true to their selves. And just for that, it deserves plaudits.
Memories in March reminded me of the haunting song Mera kuch saaman tumhare paas pada hain…mera voh saaman lauta do from Gulzar's Ijaazat because this forms the backbone of the story. Behind a tragic tale of loss and grief, it puts together another layer of what memories consist of and who has the right to these memories. These two strands of the story blend to become one towards the end, forging new bonds between a grieving mother and her son's gay lover and the girl who loved him selflessly.
Arti Mishra (Deepti Naval) comes from Delhi to Kolkata when her only son Siddharth dies in a car accident. As she tries to grapple with the news, alone in his flat, haunted by the e-mails and SMSes he sent, which are narrated in a voice-over, she is shell-shocked when one of his colleagues Shahana (Raima Sen) tells her that he was gay and in a relationship with his boss Ornob Mitra (Rituparno Ghosh). Is she more hurt by the loss of her son? Or, is the discovery of his alternative sexual preference more shocking? Or, does she feel betrayed by a son who kept part of his life a secret from a mother he was so close to?
The film fleshes out the reality of memories not being the monopoly of the immediate family such as a divorced and grieving mother. Memories are not confined to material belongings of someone who is no more. Memories also consist of moments shared with people distanced from blood ties who often become a 'new' family in a new home. They span out to include Siddharth's intimate moments that he shared with his lover, with his colleague who was in love with him; selective memories shelved for nostalgic moments within the experiences of those close to him, not just his mother who believed she knew her son the best.
- See more at: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/memories-in-march/776242/#sthash.ePsoGjYa.dpuf

36 comments:

  1. I don't think the dad's presence (or absence) is a justification or even an explanation of Siddharth's homosexuality. The script is by Rituparno, and he is not stupid to pander to spreading even more ignorance. Look at it this way - your parents are divorced, yet if something happened to you, and if your father was abroad, wouldn't your mother try to get in touch to let him know? Sometimes a cigarette is just a cigarette. :)

    I'm not talking about the film being a flaming torch for gay rights. I'm saying that as far as the gay community in India is concerned, this is a very important film. We need more films that show homosexuals NOT as aberrants, but as normal people who happen to love the same sex instead of the opposite one. Which handle their need for acceptance, and show their point of view without resorting to the same tired shcticks of making them effeminate poufs or objects of pity/horror. To that extent, this film does yeoman service.

    But we agree on liking the film, so ya-a-a-y! [grin]

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nice review! Love
    how such a tabooed subject is handled so tenderly and tactfully. Deepti Naval
    is a nice actress who is often underestimated. Although I empathize with
    the mother's feelings for her son. However educated any mother would be,she has
    same heart as all the mothers of the world have. A mother is a mother after all
    !!.Though I'd prefer Shabana in the mother's character.....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks, coolone. Yes, this was definitely a film with its heart in the right place. Much as I like Shabana as an actress, I think Deepti was fantastic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're welcome, Harvey. Just for information, it is available on YouTube in its entirety.

    Rituparno Ghosh has never made any secrets about his sexuality. I mean, he doesn't go about flaunting it, but neither does he deny it. Which I think makes him exactly like any heterosexual individual.

    A relationship in hiding is the fate of many homosexuals in the US. Down to no rights at all. I'm glad I'm living in a liberal state where no one is denied basic rights because of their sexuality. So far, thirteen states have signed gay rights into their constitution; hopefully, others will join in.

    That is why I said a film like Memories in March is an important step forward. Where being gay is not treated offensively just to get laughs, or for shock value as Deepa Mehta did in Fire. It just is another relationship, bas! Oh, do, do take some time to watch it! I guarantee you will like it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. On the whole this was (is) certainly a watchable movie.

    The base subject of relation between two individuals, under a rather non-traditional social milieu, is also handled well enough... with good deal of restraint, as very rightly observed by you.

    The style of narrative is from a third party's point of view , some times through that of the mother, Arti,, sometimes through the eyes of a colleague, Sahana, who also seems to be in love with Siddharth (or is she really!).

    The plot does become a bit complex when the emotional undercurrents of characters of the Arti, as mother , as a wife Or that of Sahana, also mingle in.

    On one hand that yields the story several shades of reactions about the way human beings act under different situations, under different robes. This kind of attempt to provide the depth to the characters, to support the interpretation of the main plot, can perhaps be better handled in the format of a novel. But on this platform of a film, which itself is based on a set of chain of complex human relations, these additional undercurrents seem to distract our focus.

    On the whole a good movie.
    Thanks for a 'good' review of 'different'cinema.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've never even heard of this film, and now I want to watch it ASAP! What a superb review, Anu - it brought the film alive for me. Thank you so much. I love Deepti Naval as an actress, and she's aged excellently.



    The sad thing is that films like this which try and depict homosexuality not as an 'abnormality' but for what it is - the love between two people who happen to be of the same gender - are almost unknown. It's the caricatures, the images to be poked fun at, that remain in people's minds. In the West, it's a little better, but in India, films that deal sensitively with gays and the general community's reactions to them... are either close to non-existent, or non-seen. :-(

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you, Ashokji. I think I focused on the mother-lover-friend relationships and wasn't distracted at all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thank you, Madhu. You know it means a lot coming from you. :) As for watching it, it is available in its entirety on YouTube. Oh, do, do watch. Agree about Deepti Naval too - you will like her in this as well, I'm sure. She brings out her conflict and denial (and in the end, understanding and acceptance) very well.



    Funnily enough, this won the National Award for Best film in English that year. Unfortunately, the box office did not respond as well - a) it is the subject, definitely. b) I also think it is because the film was made in English. And if you haven't wached My Brother Nikhil, I would recommend that as well - off hand, they are the only two films I know of (in Hindi and the 'North Indian' languages) that deal with homosexuality without caricaturing them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is a subject which is not exactly my scene but thanks to such off-beat subjects, talented actresses like Deepti Naval get a chance to showcase their talent. Where would they get a chance to do so in mainstream cinema, where nowadays character actors are like wall paper, pushed somewhere in the background while the hero hogs the limelight. While this film was under production (I think it was this film unless Rituporno has acted in some other film too) that Rituporno had specially undergone surgery on his waist for this role. I think he wanted a narrower waist or something like that. I have forgotten the details.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's just a story about relationships, Shilpi. One of the characters is homosexual, that is all. Finally, it is about acceptance for who you are, than what you should be.

    Rituporno had specially undergone surgery on his waist
    It was not for this film; if at all he did it (could be, just hadn't heard of it), it must have been for Chitrangada where he played both man and woman.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Forgot to add that Rituparno is also open about his gender identity - he identifies as transgender.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, yes I think you are right, it is Arekti Premer Golpo I remember reading about this surgery which he had got done for the film.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anu,

    There are movies which I have started watching after reading your reviews -
    The Japanese Wife, now this (Anatomy Of A
    Murder
    downloaded and next in line). I must say I am happy I
    saw it, the movie is worthy of your high quality review.

    All the four lead actors are terrific. I thought the best was Rituparno
    himself, notwithstanding the fact that his voice was somewhat feeble and
    delivery less clear compared to the other actors. In fact he had to essay
    the most difficult role, that of the love interest of Sid. Was he wearing
    his effeminate side on his sleeve? I am not sure, because if he was, he
    made it look very natural. He breaks down very naturally, very
    unabashedly, and is able to show that his loss is the greatest, even
    greater than that of the mother.

    Is it a statement of gay rights? I thought so, at least at one point
    Rituprno takes a very strident position, when he bursts out at the
    mother that she needs counselling herself, that there is something seriously
    wrong with her, and finally, "So far you were melodramatic, now you are
    filthy". What was the provocation - she used the word 'abnormality',
    which is a very natural reaction of 'normal' people. The perspective of
    the other side is somewhat mild when the mother says, no matter how much she tries to understand, perhaps she would not be able to accept the fact that her son was gay.

    The movie is lyrical primarily because it is about relationship at a very subtle
    level. The reference to explicit physical part comes only for a few minutes
    when the mother discovers condoms in Sid's drawer and immediately calls Shahana late in the night that it was a vindication that he was 'normal', and Shahana uses the mother's very sentence - 'you must grow up, everyone knows what it is used for' - to convey the exact opposite. Except that it is an
    interesting turn of phrase, what is the point of all this? To my mind
    this was wholly unnecessary, and reduces the movie.

    There was another point I found somewhat odd. The mother is naturally angry at the prevarication of Riuparno in returning Sid's things, and sternly asks him to address her Mrs Mishra rather than auntie. But when she has understood
    him and his relationship with her son, why should she ask him at address her by her first name, Aarti. I could not understand where it is coming from.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I looked it up, Shilpi. It was for the Arekti Premer Golpo - apparently, he needed to lose weight for the role, and the skin on his stomach sagged, so he went in for surgery to tighten it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thank you, SoY. That makes my day. :)

    I don't think he was wearing his effeminate side on his sleeve at all. But someone else has that perception, and that is fine, I guess.

    Yes, in one sense, that scene where he accuses her of being not just melodramatic but filmi - yes, it was a rather vocal plea for gay rights. And why not? Heterosexuality may be 'normal' from an evolutionary viewpoint, but to be termed 'abnormal' for being gay is an insult. Why wouldn't a gay person take umbrage at that? In fact, I don't wonder that Rituparno tells her she is the one who needs counselling - remember that that dialogue is in response to her statement that she would have taken Siddharth to a psychiatrist for counselling, so that the 'abmormality' could be removed.

    Licing in the US, I cringe when I read of 'conversion camps' for gays, where they are 'converted' to become heterosexual through electric shocks and the like. That is the world that gays inhabit. It is a world that we heterosexuals have made abnormal for them that they cannot be themselves. And it is a shame that we penalise them for being who and what they are.

    The scene about the condoms - I think that was essential. It shows the mother's inability to come to terms with the knowledge that her son was gay. So, if she found condoms, it must obviously mean that it is because he is 'normal'. Very few people want to think about gay sex, especially when it involves men. And therefore, Shahana's response - grow up! Every kid today knows about condoms and safe sex. Whether that sex is hetero or homo.


    About Arti/Mrs Mishra - did you not notice that he always addressed her as Arti? Until she specifically tells him to call her Mrs Mishra? Later, when she begins to understand the relationship (and him) better, she is comfortable with her first name being used again. That is my reading of it. :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anu,

    I do not intend to labour my point about physical part of the relationship again. I had in mind some very well known relationships. Nehru-Edwina for example. Or, Amrita Preetam's with the painter, Imroz, who lived with her in the last forty years of her life. I recently heard Imroz talking about the relationship in a TV interview. He also spoke about her relationship with Sahir Ludhiyanvi, before him. It was poetry. When she herself writes about her relationship with various men, it is lyrical. Whether they 'did it' is not only pointless, but trivialises a beautiful relationship. You take out those five minutes from the film, you don't lose anything, the message remains as powerful, the movie remains tender throughout, without any jarring note.

    About Arti/Mrs Mishra, frankly I didn't recall him addressing her by the first name. In fact, I remember clearly him addressing her 'Ma'am', when she visits him in his cabin. The CEO and the office secretary, who is doing her papers, address her as "Mrs Mishra" - again quite logical. About "filmy", I remember clearly he used the word "filthy", because he also followed it with a very contemptuous "chhi". One of us has seriously misheard him. I mentioned about his voice being not clear. I think he should have got himself dubbed.

    I am surprised that anything like a "conversion" camp could even exist in the US. When I was a graduate student in the US about twety-five years ago, we had a course titled "Individual and Group Behaviour" (IGB) in which the class was divided into small groups of ten each. The students in a group would discuss their family, emotions, aspirations and whatever. One girl said she was very fond of children, but was not sure whether she would have them before or after marriage. A boy said he would not marry as he was a gay. Being the only non-American, I soon learnt these are matter of fact statements which should cause no reaction. Among several student interest groups, one was GLIB (Gay and Lesbian Interest Group).

    Gay and Lesbian Studies has since become recognised areas of academic enquiry across campuses. I realise an academic campus is not representative of the American society, but surely if what you describe exists, it would be treated as lunatic fringe from the ultra-right.

    By the way, I thought you know I am AK. :)

    AK

    ReplyDelete
  17. Seem to have missed this totally; don't remember even hearing about the movie -a little surprising, that...

    Still so difficult to broach the topic about homosexuality and not feel odd talking about it. Maybe it is the social conditioning - since there is so less social acceptance on the subject, homosexual love is not treated at par with heterosexual love. For some reason, a gay character even makes an entry in our movies, he has to be a caricature - oru njerumb rogi, so as to say. They can't make a Brokeback Mountain here, no? Two of us men had gone together to watch Brokeback Mountain and must confess, the love scenes did feel uncomfortable....

    ReplyDelete
  18. Probably didn't get a theatrical release in Bombay; or if it did, played in some multiplex somewhere for a couple of days, probably as a matinee and disappeared. No known stars, no titillation, no item songs - which distributor is going to touch it?

    It is sad that even today, gays have to hide their affections. It is even sadder that a film like Brokeback Mountain will be talked about more for its love scenes than for its take on relationships. The problem is with us, the audience - that when we hear 'gay', our minds automatically jump to sex. As if there is nothing more to a gay relationship than the purely physical.

    I'll be honest; explicit love scenes involving opposite sex actors also make me uncomfortable. Not that I'm saying they should go back to two flowers nodding in the breeze, but more often than not, these scenes are gratuitous. Yet people will talk about how 'aesthetically' it is shot, how it is 'necessary for the script' and so on. Mention a homosexual love scene, and you will get titters and dirty jokes. It's sad. And I'm not talking only about India here. I find it here too, in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't know if you heard, Anu... Rituparno Ghosh passed away, of a heart attack. Just came across the news, and was reminded immediately of this post of yours.



    RIP, Rituparno.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anu,
    Who would have thought when we were discussing this film that Rituparno would pass away so soon.

    RIP, Rituparno.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I heard about it first thing today morning, Madhu. So, so young. What a shock! I really liked his movies.

    May his soul rest in peace.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I know, AK. It was such a shock to read about it today morning.

    ReplyDelete
  23. So sad. I was introduced to him through this review, (had just fleetingly read about him here and there without registering) and as soon as I read about the news I thought of this review.
    RIP.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I just remembered that he had directed Chokarbali, a film that I've seen and liked. I am also interested in Naukadubi by him.
    I'd forgotten that these were directed by him.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It is, indeed. One of our finest talents, and so young. :(

    ReplyDelete
  26. He also directed Raincoat based on O. Henry's Gift of the Magi (credited). Good film. Also Shubho Muhorat based on The Mirror Crack'd, and also Titli, which I reviewed a while back. But whatever you do, don't watch Antarmahal. :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Just heard of his demise.So sad!! a talent like him passed away.May his soul rest in peace..............................

    ReplyDelete
  28. What a turn of the fate, indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yeah, what a pity that the genius that we are talking about is no more and at such a young age! Saw his Unishe April, Raincoat, Antar Mahal and Khela....Sad day for cinema:(

    ReplyDelete
  30. >But whatever you do, don't watch Antarmahal. :)


    :-D Isn't that with Abhishek? Acually I'd never heard of it. Just read somewhere where Abhishek mentioned that every actor/actress member of his family has been directed by him, and named this as his film.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Actually, AB Jr was very, very good, and so was Rupali Ganguly. Soha Ali Khan was okay and Jackie Shroff hammed. But the film was, in the words of S, "Intellectual masturbation".

    ReplyDelete
  32. It's a strange coincidence, no? :(

    ReplyDelete
  33. It is indeed a sad day for cinema. His characters, especially his women characters were so lovingly drawn. I really liked his films, and would watch them on the strength of his name alone. Titli, Raincoat, Chokher Bali, Antar Mahal, Memories in March, Shubho Muhorat.... I have seen so many of them.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Did want to watch Shubho Muhorat and even downloaded it but it had no sub-titles. With the net bandwidths here, watching on Youtube is anyway not possible...

    ReplyDelete
  35. Yes, I know. I used to be very frustrated when I tried to watch a film on YouTube in India. I watched it on DVD.

    ReplyDelete

Back to TOP