Qalandar Reviews SAAWARIYA (Hindi; 2007)

Qalandar |

23 | November 13, 2007 at 3:29 am | 8 views | Reviews| Share

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

Possible spoiler warning (though really, you haven’t been watching Hindi films for very long if you feel the review does contain a genuine spoiler)…

LINK

Qalandar Reviews WANTED (Hindi; 2009)

Qalandar Reviews GULAAL (Hindi; 2009)

Qalandar (Belatedly Watches &) Reviews JODHA-AKBAR (Hindi; 2008)

Qalandar Reviews 3 IDIOTS (Hindi; 2009)

My take on SAAWARIYA (Hindi, 2007)

There Are 23 Responses So Far. »

Sunny 12 November 2007
11:34:58 pm

Excellent! review Q. I think I’ll give this a skip..and wait for the DVD.

som 12 November 2007
11:36:44 pm

thanks for the wondeful review Qalandar.

som 12 November 2007
11:37:52 pm

“Saawariya is clearly intended as this kind of film, and fails miserably in saying anything meaningful about the themes it puts in play: love, desire, devotion, sacrifice, the ethics of being in the world. Instead, we get a pose, a gesture, and a stale one at that – the waiting woman and the nomad who wishes to “rescue” her, a sort of Peter Pan view of Indian femininity (stressed ad nauseam in his interviews by Bhansali, who is prone to characterizing those who disagree as culturally inauthentic “screaming” feminists) and of love, drained as it is of any urgency or passion.”

could not have agreed more.perfectly well summarized!

beldevere 12 November 2007
11:45:18 pm

See if q had been in us, he would have written a much more intellectual review. Why did you come to india q !!

Jokes aside, great review.

som 12 November 2007
11:45:44 pm

it was nothing more than a visual spectacle.

FloydRulez 12 November 2007
11:50:01 pm

Excellent.

Re. In the final analysis, however, nothing can make up for the fact that Saawariya is wretchedly boring, the sort of unabashed snoozefest that makes one’s jaw drop in disbelief. Contrary to Bhansali’s protestations on television, this has nothing to do with whether or not Saawariya is a work of art (or Work of Art, as Bhansali would doubtless prefer it), or with his (disingenuous) posturing that absent Saawariya, Hindi cinema would be left to a stagnant inertia of puerile comedies and hackneyed genres, or with media hostility (though Bhansali is doubtless right to complain about the intellectual dishonesty and sheer incompetence that has characterized most of the film’s reviews thus far).

Amen to that!

flora 13 November 2007
12:19:13 am

very good

abzee 13 November 2007
12:21:06 am

Besides Rangan and Chute, yours is the best review of the film so far. Loved the way you connected Muslim and Hindu tropes.

But dude, that entire passage about Gaudi and architecture just went over me! How well read and well travelled are you?

BTW, saw OSO last night. Very underwhelmed. Saawariya in the next few days, hopefully.

satyam 13 November 2007
12:25:28 am

I second Abzee Qalandar. Simply fantastic stuff and truly enlightening at the same time..

abzee 13 November 2007
12:28:03 am

The Skeptic had this to say in the ShoutBox

“Bravo, Q. That was just about one of your most illuminating reviews. I learnt only a few hundred new facts and half as many insights into the various symbolic/allegorical meanings deployed by SLB.

Finally though, while I do not deny you your feelings of boredom, I’m unwilling to accept that the persona of a tramp should have been eschewed in favour of Ranbir’s “natural” charm. I’m quite intrigued by the challenge and, in this time and day, the sheer alienness of resurrecting that persona, on this side of the millennium having seen increasingly aware, mature, disillusioned and finally cynical personas in our cinema.

Also, I observe that you do not fail to take your habitual dig at Sarkar, something of a leitmotif in your reviews, almost your signature now – and I say this with amusement rather than any hint of sourness.

You rail against the evils of dynasticism, but in my opinion ignoring this aspect would have been to not honor the full set of meanings entrained by the fact of Ranbir’s legacy, to eliminate his “difference”, what sets him apart from just any other new entrant to Bollywood. Not to mention violate the pact with the audience which does entertain precisely those connections that you would have effaced.

This reminds me of those inter-racial Hollywood movies (such as Kevin Costner’s The Bodyguard) that proudly flash their liberal badges in effacing all signs of “color” from the narrative, pretending to live in a world, to have already achieved a world where color differences do not matter.

To similarly proceed as if dynasties do not exist, to proceed as if that fact does not color the perceptions of the audience, seems to me to be as disingenuous.

To deploy this fact, to engage with it, is to allow another narrative dimension, another layer of meaning over or perhaps under that of the first-order narrative. And this need not always be a simple narrative of “succession”, it also allows for irony, commentary, humor and subversion. All of which would not be possible if one treats Ranbir as he were no different from say Neil Nitin Mukesh. “

FloydRulez 13 November 2007
12:28:43 am

On the three versions so far, Visconti’s White nights (it’s no masterpiece by any means, but undoubtedly the better of the three, something to do with the director’s skill) Iyarkai, and Saawariya, they are ranked in that very order! Jananadhan’s Iyarkai is in a natural milieu of a Tamil coastal region, while SLB’s was complete opposite, the film could have its ever-so-ostensible visual metaphors, but it’s sadly insignificant when read in a broader perspective of this film. But I will just paraphrase your last line, this creative failure demands engagement.

satyam 13 November 2007
12:42:01 am

A very interesting set of thoughts from theskeptic. On the Raj Kapoor persona point I also agree with Qalandar that Bhansali perhaps burdened Ranbir a bit too much in this sense.

satyam 13 November 2007
12:50:36 am

Floydrulez: Bhansali could hardly be compared with Visconti but I think that in their own ways both Iyarkai and White Nights are tepid films. Strong in some ways, Iyarkai in the ways you’ve mentioned but ultimately not ‘vital’ works.

It seems to me that in his ‘dreamscape’ (and I will extend the point in my review) Bhansali perhaps offers a truer counterpart to Dostoevsky’s own city of white nights (st petersburg) than either Visconti’s Venice or the coastal community in Iyarkai (of course this is a much looser adaptation). Because the Dostoevsky story is very much concerned with the notion of the ‘dream’ and his choice of place offers an appropriate ‘objective correlative’ (not very precise but it will have to do!) much like Bhansali’s marvelous sets.

For those unfamiliar St Petersburg in summer (which is when and where both White Nights and the ‘nightmarish’ Crime and Punishment are set) has sunset beginning around 9:30 PM or so and then twilight lasting till midnight. Dawn comes in around 4 AM and a pre-dawn light suffuses the skies much earlier. Essentially there are only 2-3 hours of darkness! Incidentally some of the Scandinavian countries offer similar spectacles (they are on similar Northern latitudes). Norway is often called the ‘land of the midnight sun’.

Why all of this is important is because a night that is so brightly lit is surely a bit ‘dreamlike’!

Now since it’s way past midnight at my end and it certainly isn’t a white night at this end I am going to call it a day (and night!).

FloydRulez 13 November 2007
01:37:53 am

Satyam,

Sure, I never built a strong case for both the films, just found them to be better than Saawariya as a film, btw I realized this,
It seems to me that in his ‘dreamscape’ (and I will extend the point in my review) Bhansali perhaps offers a truer counterpart to Dostoevsky’s own city of white nights (st petersburg) than either Visconti’s Venice or the coastal community in Iyarkai (of course this is a much looser adaptation).

akshay shah 13 November 2007
01:48:09 am

This is a fabulous review of the film Q bhai, though I did like a lot more than you did. And some superb thoughts from Skeptic as always, thanks for posting Abzee!

I’m all the more curious to check out IYARKAI now and will push it further up on my list!

BTW I feel so alone:(! Lol…my friends have cursed me….family has threatened to abandon me if I try and “explain” to them where i’m coming from with my thoughts on SAWARIYA and why I enjoyed the film so much!

Qalandar 13 November 2007
02:58:26 am

Thanks all for the kind comments.

TheSkeptic has offered the best “defense” of “the dynastic” yet. I agree completely; however, my objection was to the plugging of the RK angle HERE, in the context of a script that could ill afford it. IMO the “RK” legend, the Raj kapoor/Nargis pose, didn’t really “fit” with the dream world of Saawariya. Plus, the analogy “works” with respect to Ranbir, but falls utterly flat when one thinks of the Nargis/Sonam Kapoor analogy: the RK/Nargis couple was famous in part because they were offscreen lovers, as well as the stars of a string of famous films. I don’t think this is an appropriate trope for a debutante couple (following on from TheSkeptic’s insights, I would have had a different view if the film starred RK’s grandson and a Nargis granddaughter or some such thing).

Similarly, my objection is not to the tramp angle per se, but to the tramp angle in this film.

On Sarkar, guilty as charged! I feel strongly about this film (you’ll note I never bring up Bunty aur Babli) is because I feel there is a difference between the dynastic element adding another strand of meaning, and outright propaganda, which is what I see RGV as indulging in..

satyam 13 November 2007
08:01:11 am

I certainly note theskeptic’s points on the dynastic issue and I think these are very useful in terms of understanding the overall Bollywood framework. However I remain partial to Qalandar’s reading in this sense on the question of Saawariya.

Ravi 13 November 2007
09:04:45 am

Very nice review Q bhai as always.

satyam 15 November 2007
07:22:19 am

Whatever one might think of Saawariya it is pointless watching it on video if one hasn’t seen it in the theater. Because even if nothing else appeals to one here the visuals certainly will and these can only be appreciated on the big screen. And ultimately it’s not just a Devdas here. The visuals are very tastefully integrated with the thematic aspects of the film.

I think it’s a crime to watch OSO in the theater and not Saawariya. We cannot lament the lack of quality products if we set our bar so high. In other words we tend to watch mediocre films in the theater because these are more commercial products but are not willing to go the distance with a quality film. Well, then we deserve monthly diets of Partner or Heyy Babyy or OSO, as the case might be.

In a similar vein it would be a crime not to watch JA in the theater.

FloydRulez 20 November 2007
05:29:40 am

BTW, The Tamil director who made Iyarkai has accused Bhansali of plagiarism, although the site which reported this is one of its kind in authenticity. So..

Qalandar 1 December 2007
06:14:03 am

btw, I had read a comment by Sandy that she would put up her thoughts on Saawariya– has she in fact done so? If yes, could someone paste the link here for me to check out later?

Thanks!

Iyarkai is a film I am quite partial to, I love the way it captured the ambience of that coastal town, representing it as a kind of flotsam of contemporary globalization…oh how I wish an actor better than Shaam had been the lead!