Sholay (1975) - The First Review

It was a lot of fun translating this early review of Sholay from the Hindi, published in the Delhi based magazine Sarita in 1975. Sarita, a popular magazine since 1945 was always read for its serialized fiction, short stories, non-fiction pieces and articles based on social, and lifestyle issues and continues to thrive. In this review of the film that would later become iconic, the anonymous writer excoriates nearly everything he/she sees. There is neither pussyfooting nor excessive deference to the film and its makers and is a piece of history itself.

Review of Sholay in Sarita, 1975

Producer: G P Sippy

Director: Ramesh Sippy

Main Actors: Dharmendra, Sanjeev Kumar, Amitabh Bachchan, Hema Malini, Jaya Bhadhuri, A K Hangal, Satyen Kappoo, Leela Misra, Amjad Khan

Former police inspector Thakur Sahab (Sanjeev Kumar) is in need of two such thugs who could trounce fifteen or twenty assailants at a time. Thakur Sahab knows that Viru (Dharmendra) and Jai (Amitabh Bachchan) are such lowlifes, but they are full of courage and steeped in humanity (All hail writer duo Salim Javed). Both brave men reach Thakur's village. It's inevitable that there should be someone to ferry them to the village. So, this time, there is a 'tangewali', Hema Malini (Basanti), and Hema's mare 'Dhanno', who seems quite well-trained, and fills the role of Hema's sister or friend. The remaining story of the dacoit Gabbar Singh (Amjad Khan) is an Indian adaptation of a masala mix made up of bits of 'Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid', 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly' and 'The Secret of Santa Vittoria'.

The film is just about OK until the interval, and, to an extent, entertaining. But after that, it seems that the director of this 'khichdi' film and its writer duo Salim Javed are afflicted with seizures of fights and violent bloodletting. But the fact is that these scenes of fighting and violence are both lifeless and unexciting. 

There are several sets inspired by Hollywood films, but these are largely ineffective. This is because Indian set designers have not yet learnt to mimic solid masonry with walls made out of paper. In the story, a water tank has a prominent role, but it is difficult to understand how water rises to the tank, as the village has neither electricity nor diesel engines. And where does the water go from this tank? There are several examples of such ridiculousness in the film.

Considering the kind of films that Sanjeev, Dharmendra and Amitabh are acting in today, it is difficult to take them seriously in their various roles in 'Sholay'. Dharmendra and Amitabh neither look like thugs nor horses for hire. Seeing Dharmendra's bare chest or his arms does not put you in mind of his character in 'Phool aur Patthar'. Now he looks like a Hindi-film actor quite full of himself. Amitabh is quite striking in his white clothes, and is even effective to an extent, but he most certainly does not look like a killer for hire.

Sanjeev is considered an actor with a remarkable 'range', but in 'Sholay' he completely fails in his efforts to become like (Hollywood's) Omar Sharif. The sounds emanating from his throat are like the characters speaking from those haunted house type of films.

And what can be said about Hema Malini and her constant 'Yaani ki' and 'Yunhi ki'? She neither looks like a young girl nor like a full-grown woman.

In other roles, Hangal and Satyen Kappoo reprise their usual crying/chest beating acts resembling fifty-year-old antique chachajis, mamajis and nanajis, with their cloying 'Kaise ho beti?' style. The new villain Amjad has not made up his mind whom to ape - his late father Jayant, or Dilip Kumar, or Pran or Premnath. Of course, his bellowing makes the 70mm stereophonic sound system quite meaningful.

There is a lot of strength in Dwarka Divecha's camerawork. In any case, Salim Javed take stock of all their earlier successful films to concoct a new screenplay. Director Ramesh Sippy has been quite effective in some portions of the film. But watching so many rubbish parts one does not feel that such a man (or woman) can be a film director at all. Rahul Dev Burman's music misses the point. Anand Bakshi's lyrics are more of the same old stuff.

In summary, 'Sholay' stands because of some technical competence. Otherwise, it is quite a crime to spend a crore of rupees on this rubbish film, and all those who made these films are accomplices to this crime as also those who, goggle-eyed by its advertising campaign, went to see it with such enthusiasm and returned home wringing their hands in regret.

Time Out Mumbai- Nanny State of Mind

This piece appeared in an edited version in my 'After Words' column in Time Out Mumbai, February 2014

Nanny State of Mind

One of the first actions the new CEO of the Central Board of Film Certification has taken is to rollback all permissions granted to movies in the last few months on the grounds that the previous board was too permissive of objectionable content. One of them, ‘Sholay-3D’, was pinpointed for lacking seriousness in its content. The movie was screened in the presence of the CEO, his Board, his parents, his wife, her parents, his daughters, and their neighbors from the same floor. The following cuts and modifications to ‘Sholay-3D’ were demanded:

Vigilantism in all forms is disapproved, as when a currently serving policeman is commissioned by a retired Inspector to source delinquents to carry out encounters. The scene showing Thakur giving supari to Jai and Veeru should be removed.

All three coin tossing scenes to be excised as a British Raj coin is used in independent India. Also said coin was forged (heads on both sides).

The Inspector, shown sitting in the same space as two convicts in a goods train should be replaced with a havaldar. Also, when in uniform, the inspector should be addressed correctly as ‘Inspector Saab’ and not ‘Thakur’ (proper hierarchy must be followed).

Scenes showing Veeru running on tops of railway compartments should be deleted. This wrongly encourages rooftop travelling by children in suburban trains and violates several clauses of the Indian Railway Act.

The song ‘Yeh Dosti’ is to be entirely deleted for promoting cultural prurience. Far too much love and physical displays of affection are visible between two full-grown males. Not only do they hold hands but one actually mounts the other’s shoulders while riding a motorcycle. Sec 377 to be referred to, also traffic laws regarding reckless endangerment while riding a two wheeler. The board also found objectionable the lyrics that openly refer to same-sex love (‘aisa apna pyaar’, etc.)

Scenes of the main actors openly extorting beedis from Soorma Bhopali without a ‘Smoking Kills’ disclaimer is a lapse needing rectification. A later scene of Imam’s son moving to work in a tobacco factory is discouraged on religious grounds. Alcoholism, consuming unbranded country products by respected senior film stars encourages illegal haath bhattis and leads to liquor tragedies.

Scenes of a widow turning off lights in the verandah outside her bedroom while another man ogles her while playing a mouth-organ were found to be too suggestive. The implied invitation to promiscuity cannot be overlooked. The scene of Radha handing over keys of father-in-law’s safe to criminals shows the Indian widow in poor character.

Russian roulette in Gabbar Singh’s introductory scene is of foreign origin. It is suggested that this be replaced with the Indian game of chausar. Firing bullets in the air is a waste of ordnance, an action not desirable in a developing country such as ours. Also, harvesting mangoes using guns is discouraged as it divests the unskilled unemployed of a proper day’s wages under NREGA.

All scenes of eve-teasing and physical proximity in song ‘Holi ke din’ should be removed. The producers are requested to see Barjatya’s wholesome films for positive influences.

The Board also frowns upon the excessive use of the Arabo-Turko-Persian vocabulary that permeates the entire movie, ignoring our homegrown Sanskritic heritage. To redress this, it is suggested that the following phrases be replaced-
‘yeh dosti’ by ‘yeh maitri’,
‘mehbooba’ by ‘premika’
and
‘kitne aadmi the?’ by ‘kitne purush the?’

Also, to avoid the issuance of an ‘A’ certificate, the following obscenities must mandatorily be replaced-
‘haramzaadae!’ by ‘dusht!’,
‘hijdon ki fauj’ by ‘ardha-nar sena’,
‘soovar ke bachchon’ by ‘murgi ke chooze’
and
‘chakki p*****g’ by ‘micturation’.

All lady members of the audience walked out during the ‘Mehbooba’ song, while covering the eyes of their young ones. Helen was not wearing skin-colored, full-body innerwear, as Sandhya and Vyjantimala have respectfully done in the past. Also physical thrustings of certain body parts in 3D to R D Burman’s rhythms were too much for older members of the board. On second thoughts, an ‘A’ certificate is unanimously advised.

Horses, poultry and insects were all harmed in this film. Such scenes should be replaced by CGI and a certificate to the effect should preface the main titles.

Depicting the surgical amputation of Thakur’s limbs is deemed unacceptable as the swords were not sterilized before the operation. Also Thakur was not put under general anesthesia by a qualified medical person. This encourages bad practices.

The use of spikes outside of a sport pitch can send wrong messages to school going children to wear them to classroom and home and should be replaced with sneakers (with the brand blurred). Also, stamping on someone’s palms with shoes on is against the Indian tradition of respect and humility. On the other hand, the Board commends the depiction of the ill-effects of dancing without shoes in public places.

The last scene of a man and a woman publicly embracing in a train compartment makes us hang our heads in shame. We condemn the previous Board for allowing such vulgarity to go though and recommend an enquiry (by appointing a retired judge) on their possibly mala-fide intentions of ruining the ethos of our great nation.