[Administrivia: I am back; thanks to Alan Wexelblat for handling the moderation chores while I was on vacation. -Evelyn Leeper]
BOMBAY
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1995 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule: While by Western standards this is
not a great film, it towers above most films made
for the Indian domestic market. Western viewers
who do not know the conventions of Indian domestic
films may be puzzled by the combination of light
comedy and serious political content, but will find
the film rewarding nonetheless. Rating: low +2 (-4
to +4)
The vast majority of Indian films are weak exploitation films intended to entertain mass audiences, and rare is the film made for the domestic Indian market that looks intelligently at a serious issue. People in India usually do not go to the movie theater to be edified by a film with serious meanings. That is why a film like BOMBAY is so unusual and is touring international film festivals. It performs a balancing act trying to please the entertainment audiences and at the same time trying to be an indictment of the violence of the 1993 religious riots in Bombay. Trying to do both, it is not altogether successful at either. There are nightmarish depictions of the riots that presumably will bother the entertainment-oriented audience. Still, in the examination of its real issues it betrays itself twice, first in putting the serious themes so late in the film and then in treating those themes overly simplistically. To an American audience it will seem that BOMBAY mixes 1990s violence with a simplified view of the issues of racial intolerance much like the United States might have had in the 1950s. It does not look very deeply at the causes of the religious differences for fear of appearing to take sides. Instead, it limits its message to saying simply that violence is wrong and whatever the religious differences they are, rioting is not the way to resolve them. That is an important statement but not all that profound. Effectively India has discovered the politically correct film. One of the film's reviewers called this India's SCHINDLER'S LIST. The comparison applies only if comparing BOMBAY to other Indian films.
Our story starts like a classic "Romeo and Juliet" plot. Young Hindu boy Shekhar Misra (played by Aruind Swami) loves Muslim girl Shaila Banu (Manisha Koirala). He knows his family will never approve- --his father does not like even Northern Hindus, much less Moslems--but he goes ahead and courts her. When his family objects too strongly he flees to Bombay and sends for Banu. Bombay initially represents the anonymity and tolerance of a cosmopolitan city. However, their love has already caused a feud between the two families and it continues in their absence. While the plot takes a comic turn of the newlyweds unable to find privacy to be together in Bombay, the reluctant fathers-in-law escalate a feud. This is all done with a light touch, but soon the theme of intolerance will be handled more shockingly. The city of Bombay is about to be torn apart by riots, and the film will get a good deal more serious.
Western critics discussing BOMBAY find it odd that a light comedy turns into an angry political indictment. The original film was probably an even stranger combination. The version we are seeing is reportedly cut down from a version in which there were also the traditional love songs mixed in. There are some light musical interludes in what is being shown but not the popular songs that were probably in the original. It might be a mistake to attribute the combination to the originality of writer and director Mani Ratnam. It is much more a convention of Indian domestic films that all films are musicals and comedies. As an example, KHAL-NAAIKAA, a remake of the American horror film THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE, was very close to the original except for the seemingly incongruous injection of comedy and musical sequences into the story. But in spite of this, what does come through is often moving, though at times not as subtle as a Western viewer might like. At times the action stops as a character make speeches for tolerance. But what other critics are finding fresh and original is, in fact, a cultural difference and almost inevitable in Indian domestic films. Incidentally, I noted the credit included a dance director in spite of the fact that there was no real dance in the version we saw.
The camera work for BOMBAY is a little showy. Several simple effects are used including slow-motion, scenes rushing past the camera, and strobe effects as well as subjective hand-held camera shots.
Also, the film might have been a bit better with a screen or two at the beginning explaining the basis of the conflict and the name ofa political group referenced in the film. This would serve a double purpose. It would not only help foreign audiences understand the conflict, it would also bind the film together by promising that there will be serious political material coming up. There certainly was some question why, for example, the Moslems in the film are so opposed to a particular temple to Ram being built. While most of what goes on becomes clear from context, most Western viewers could do with a few notes.
While the basic subject matter is contrived, this is certainly the best Indian domestic film in years. Rate it a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
mark.leeper@att.com
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews