Neel Kamal

Directed by: Ram Maheshwari

Starring: Waheeda Rehman, Manoj Kumar, Raaj Kumar, Lalita Pawar, Balraj Sahni, Mehmood, Shashikala

Released: 1968

Verdict: destroy every copy ? horrible ? bad ? whatever ? flawed but enjoyable - good ? great ? amazing

Do you remember a scene from Kaagaz Ke Phool when an aspiring actress played by Waheeda Rehman attends a party and styles herself for it according to latest fashion trends? She then bumps into a director, played by Guru Dutt, who discovered her and is in for a nasty surprise when instead of flattery she is scolded by him for ruining her unique charm, which lies in simplicity. I felt like Guru Dutt while watching Neel Kamal. Somehow I felt that the dramatic 60s styling with mad cat eyes and huge hair never suited Waheeda Rehman, arguably one of the most gorgeous women on screen ever. Her beauty has been done justice by black and white film the most, where indeed no trappings of fashion would distract from her soulful face. By no means am I saying she looked bad in this film ? after all that may not even be possible and her innate grace is as overwhelming as ever ? but somewhere down the line I was not happy with her styling. How could I know that would actually turn out to be one of many voes offered by the film.

Neel Kamal is one of the films that cannot decide what they really are supposed to be about. Is it a horror? A reincarnation mystery? A family drama? There are even (very slight) hints of psychological thriller. From many ways they could the makers pursued the most unfortunate one and went on with weepy saas-bahu melodrama in which ultimately all characters loose their likeability. I would also say they all loose their brains, but most of them have none to loose from the beginning. In fact the supposedly mentally disturbed heroine is, for most part, the only one who has some logic left, while everybody else only have heads so it doesn?t rain into their throats.

The premise sounds intriguing, make no mistake. Once upon a time a sculptor was in love with a Princess, but instead of happiness he found death because of it. His immortal pyaar stalked the palace even as centuries went by and it fell into ruins. And finally, after years, a young woman hears the voiuce of the culptor calling out to her, for even though she is named Sita, she was once the Princess Neel Kamal. But is it all real? Or is Sita mentally disturbed or ill? In any case it lands her into a big pile of poo as the film goes on.

If I decide not to judge the movie for the old-fashioned sexism it stands for (complete with Sita having to undergo a harsh test to prove her innocence to a very undeserving hubster and nasty girls wearing western attire whilst pure heroine would never don anything but a saree) there are still too many things completely wrong about it. First of all ? Sita is obviously a sleep-walker. Instead of trying to cure or at least help her condition the only worry her father has is who is going to marry her (and a doctor himself very scientifically supports the idea that the best remedy for sleep-walking is marriage), and when she does marry he doesn?t even make her new family aware of her ?disease?, even though it is pretty life-threatening. Sita?s husband keeps randomly changing his mind about his wife according to what he is told the latest. He never bothers to actually ask her. And one look at an old statue combined with some crap about ghosts he deduces in his mind is what actually makes him believe her, instead of a delayed information from her father about her sleep-walking.

I wished the film would focus on Sita and her battling with her disease/visions/past life, but the makers did not find a time for that, wasting too much footage on her nasty sister-in-law played by ever-annoying Shashikala and her husband who looked like from another world altogether, played by Mehmood. Their subplot ranges from heavily awkward to downright embarrassing. Not to mention next to useless to the main story. Completing the mosaic of insane characters, who are concerned with everything BUT the source of what happens to Sita, is the devilish saasu-maa Lalita Pawar, who makes Sita?s life a living hell so it is OK for her to just change her mind at the end cause she don?t wanna live in an empty house yo. And nobody even wants her to say sorry. And since I really wanted Sita to send them all to blazing hell by that point I could only roll my eyes in frustration.

Neel Kamal wastes not only a promising plotline, but also its first class actors. Waheeda Rehman carries it all on her elegant shoulders, but seems as weary as her character while doing so. At least she gets to use her amazing dancing skills in several songs. Manoj Kumar as a confused pati parmeshwar looks handsome and has nothing to work with. Even seeing his plight over doubts he may have as a loving husband would have been interesting, but you know, let?s have a catfight between Shashikala and another random lady over a man neither loves instead. And over-possessive ghost Raaj Kumar, who keeps trying to kill his reincarnated love and just when she says OK decides it?s actually not that important, was quite weak.

Neel Kamal disappointed me on many levels, as a film that could have been exciting and different, but ended up being very ?common? and tiring.

Mr. and Mrs. 55

Directed by: Guru Dutt

Starring: Guru Dutt, Madhubala, Lalita Pawar, Johnny Walker

Released: 1955

My rating: destroy every copy ? horrible ? bad ? whatever ? flawed but enjoyable - good ? great ? amazing

What to do when your daddy has left you millions but only on condition of marrying within a month? Why not hire a poor, honest man to marry, and divorce after a while, with millions secured? Especially since divorce bill has finally passed? But what if your perfect plan does not include possibility of falling in love with your victim? Mr. and Mrs. 55 promises, at first, to be simply loveable, but though it does not lack good moments, performances and humour, it is one of those film of the past that are simply problematic today. For where to draw a line for ?acceptable? amount of traditional sexism?

But let?s focus on good thing first. There is something tragically attractive and beautiful about Guru Dutt, about his whole persona. The moment he appears on screen and stares at Madhubala who has seemingly fallen down from the skies, I am lost. I don?t think even Shahrukh Khan with his intent gazing can surpass him in ?looking at a woman as if she was the most beautiful thing walking on the Earth. And while this time I did not experience the familiar tingling around the heart (a feeling I get when seeing Guru with Waheeda Rehman), the lead pair in the film is both likeable and talented. Madhubala induces her character with innocence and obstinacy, decorated with delightful comic timing, while her counter-part is more subdued (and quite himself in a role of poor, mistreated-by-society artist). Johnny Lever and Kum Kum are not as over the top as usual, and Johnny actually acts as as pivotal character. Furthermore his little romance is quite amusing, and in contrast to the drama between the two leads. Or at least neither Johnny not his lady love feel the need to discuss who should be superior in the relationship.

What an utterly delightful film this might have been, had it not, as already mentioned, been so damn old-fahioned-ly sexist. I understand that it was released in the 50s, but that does not change the fact that the more it progresses the more it grates on my feminist nerves. And the worst part? It is not the man to have a a fiery, passionate speech about women?s duties and izzat, it is the heroine. Do not take me wrong. In many ways Anita (Madhubala) is a character who does things her way, even if she starts of as childish. However the complete disregard of women being unfairly treated by society annoys me. Anita?s greedy aunt (who makes sure to pinpoint she learned about ?freedom? from women of America and Europe aka continents of hoes where men need to be pitied) is exactly the type of a ?feminist? who gives feminism the bad name with her misandry, and who does not regard another woman?s own choice of way of life as right and normal. Which, ironically, is actual feminism.

At the same time we have the saintly bhabhi (who has somehow managed to have three school-going children in just four years into marriage) who believes that even when her husband beats her occasionally it?s really all just marital happiness. Urgh. Maybe the mean aunty was not wrong about everything.

Neel Kamal

Directed by: Ram Maheshwari

Starring: Waheeda Rehman, Manoj Kumar, Raaj Kumar, Lalita Pawar, Balraj Sahni, Mehmood, Shashikala

Released: 1968

Verdict: destroy every copy ? horrible ? bad ? whatever ? flawed but enjoyable - good ? great ? amazing

Do you remember a scene from Kaagaz Ke Phool when an aspiring actress played by Waheeda Rehman attends a party and styles herself for it according to latest fashion trends? She then bumps into a director, played by Guru Dutt, who discovered her and is in for a nasty surprise when instead of flattery she is scolded by him for ruining her unique charm, which lies in simplicity. I felt like Guru Dutt while watching Neel Kamal. Somehow I felt that the dramatic 60s styling with mad cat eyes and huge hair never suited Waheeda Rehman, arguably one of the most gorgeous women on screen ever. Her beauty has been done justice by black and white film the most, where indeed no trappings of fashion would distract from her soulful face. By no means am I saying she looked bad in this film ? after all that may not even be possible and her innate grace is as overwhelming as ever ? but somewhere down the line I was not happy with her styling. How could I know that would actually turn out to be one of many voes offered by the film.

Neel Kamal is one of the films that cannot decide what they really are supposed to be about. Is it a horror? A reincarnation mystery? A family drama? There are even (very slight) hints of psychological thriller. From many ways they could the makers pursued the most unfortunate one and went on with weepy saas-bahu melodrama in which ultimately all characters loose their likeability. I would also say they all loose their brains, but most of them have none to loose from the beginning. In fact the supposedly mentally disturbed heroine is, for most part, the only one who has some logic left, while everybody else only have heads so it doesn?t rain into their throats.

The premise sounds intriguing, make no mistake. Once upon a time a sculptor was in love with a Princess, but instead of happiness he found death because of it. His immortal pyaar stalked the palace even as centuries went by and it fell into ruins. And finally, after years, a young woman hears the voiuce of the culptor calling out to her, for even though she is named Sita, she was once the Princess Neel Kamal. But is it all real? Or is Sita mentally disturbed or ill? In any case it lands her into a big pile of poo as the film goes on.

If I decide not to judge the movie for the old-fashioned sexism it stands for (complete with Sita having to undergo a harsh test to prove her innocence to a very undeserving hubster and nasty girls wearing western attire whilst pure heroine would never don anything but a saree) there are still too many things completely wrong about it. First of all ? Sita is obviously a sleep-walker. Instead of trying to cure or at least help her condition the only worry her father has is who is going to marry her (and a doctor himself very scientifically supports the idea that the best remedy for sleep-walking is marriage), and when she does marry he doesn?t even make her new family aware of her ?disease?, even though it is pretty life-threatening. Sita?s husband keeps randomly changing his mind about his wife according to what he is told the latest. He never bothers to actually ask her. And one look at an old statue combined with some crap about ghosts he deduces in his mind is what actually makes him believe her, instead of a delayed information from her father about her sleep-walking.

I wished the film would focus on Sita and her battling with her disease/visions/past life, but the makers did not find a time for that, wasting too much footage on her nasty sister-in-law played by ever-annoying Shashikala and her husband who looked like from another world altogether, played by Mehmood. Their subplot ranges from heavily awkward to downright embarrassing. Not to mention next to useless to the main story. Completing the mosaic of insane characters, who are concerned with everything BUT the source of what happens to Sita, is the devilish saasu-maa Lalita Pawar, who makes Sita?s life a living hell so it is OK for her to just change her mind at the end cause she don?t wanna live in an empty house yo. And nobody even wants her to say sorry. And since I really wanted Sita to send them all to blazing hell by that point I could only roll my eyes in frustration.

Neel Kamal wastes not only a promising plotline, but also its first class actors. Waheeda Rehman carries it all on her elegant shoulders, but seems as weary as her character while doing so. At least she gets to use her amazing dancing skills in several songs. Manoj Kumar as a confused pati parmeshwar looks handsome and has nothing to work with. Even seeing his plight over doubts he may have as a loving husband would have been interesting, but you know, let?s have a catfight between Shashikala and another random lady over a man neither loves instead. And over-possessive ghost Raaj Kumar, who keeps trying to kill his reincarnated love and just when she says OK decides it?s actually not that important, was quite weak.

Neel Kamal disappointed me on many levels, as a film that could have been exciting and different, but ended up being very ?common? and tiring.

Mr. and Mrs. 55

Directed by: Guru Dutt

Starring: Guru Dutt, Madhubala, Lalita Pawar, Johnny Walker

Released: 1955

My rating: destroy every copy ? horrible ? bad ? whatever ? flawed but enjoyable - good ? great ? amazing

What to do when your daddy has left you millions but only on condition of marrying within a month? Why not hire a poor, honest man to marry, and divorce after a while, with millions secured? Especially since divorce bill has finally passed? But what if your perfect plan does not include possibility of falling in love with your victim? Mr. and Mrs. 55 promises, at first, to be simply loveable, but though it does not lack good moments, performances and humour, it is one of those film of the past that are simply problematic today. For where to draw a line for ?acceptable? amount of traditional sexism?

But let?s focus on good thing first. There is something tragically attractive and beautiful about Guru Dutt, about his whole persona. The moment he appears on screen and stares at Madhubala who has seemingly fallen down from the skies, I am lost. I don?t think even Shahrukh Khan with his intent gazing can surpass him in ?looking at a woman as if she was the most beautiful thing walking on the Earth. And while this time I did not experience the familiar tingling around the heart (a feeling I get when seeing Guru with Waheeda Rehman), the lead pair in the film is both likeable and talented. Madhubala induces her character with innocence and obstinacy, decorated with delightful comic timing, while her counter-part is more subdued (and quite himself in a role of poor, mistreated-by-society artist). Johnny Lever and Kum Kum are not as over the top as usual, and Johnny actually acts as as pivotal character. Furthermore his little romance is quite amusing, and in contrast to the drama between the two leads. Or at least neither Johnny not his lady love feel the need to discuss who should be superior in the relationship.

What an utterly delightful film this might have been, had it not, as already mentioned, been so damn old-fahioned-ly sexist. I understand that it was released in the 50s, but that does not change the fact that the more it progresses the more it grates on my feminist nerves. And the worst part? It is not the man to have a a fiery, passionate speech about women?s duties and izzat, it is the heroine. Do not take me wrong. In many ways Anita (Madhubala) is a character who does things her way, even if she starts of as childish. However the complete disregard of women being unfairly treated by society annoys me. Anita?s greedy aunt (who makes sure to pinpoint she learned about ?freedom? from women of America and Europe aka continents of hoes where men need to be pitied) is exactly the type of a ?feminist? who gives feminism the bad name with her misandry, and who does not regard another woman?s own choice of way of life as right and normal. Which, ironically, is actual feminism.

At the same time we have the saintly bhabhi (who has somehow managed to have three school-going children in just four years into marriage) who believes that even when her husband beats her occasionally it?s really all just marital happiness. Urgh. Maybe the mean aunty was not wrong about everything.