darashukoh
Lifetime Total
5+
Lifetime Bio
1+
IMDb Member
24 years
Reviews
Mangal Pandey: The Rising (2005)
Great Film! Better than most Bollywood Historicals, though not completely accurate
I am amazed at the negative comments about this film, especially from India. I'll address those criticisms later after providing a summary of the film.
Set in 1857, the film tells the story of Mangal Pandey, a sepoy (private) in the 34th Native Infantry regiment of the Bengal Army (the army of the Presidency of Bengal, governed by the British East India Company and recruited largely from upper caste UP and Bihar stock). Mangal is depicted as an ordinary soldier who is offended by the introduction of the new Enfield rifle cartridges which were greased with pig and cow fat (the former anathema to Muslims and the latter sacred to Hindus). The movie shows him changing from a loyal Company sepoy who saved a British officer's life, to one who ends up questioning the logic of British rule. Other themes include his friendship with the same British officer, the officer's rescue and subsequent romantic relationship with a sati - a widow expected to burn herself on her husband's funeral pyre,and a prostitute who exclusively services the English brothels but falls for Pandey. The movie brings opium cultivation, corruption within the Company, the growing distance between English and Indians, as well as backward, traditional Indian attitudes into sharp focus.
All in all, the film is highly entertaining, a good story - well told, with powerful performances by the main characters. Aamir Khan is in his element, living the character of Pandey and conveying a fantastic portrayal of the soldier who realizes, bit by bit, that his loyalty to a foreign army makes him as "untouchable" as the low-caste man or prostitutes he scorns. Toby Stephens performance as the outsider in British India (Scottish, poor schooling, too fraternal with the natives) was brilliant and his chemistry with Khan was the high mark of the film's dramatic impact. The music by AR Rahman is louder than usual and some of the beats are frankly out of sync with the times ( the lesbianish gypsy dance number was a bit much!!).
The strength of the film was in conveying a sense of the time period - costumes,hair-styles, sets, manners ( the English officer's "Koi Hai"), were exactly what one could expect. The historical background was fairly accurate (sati was outlawed, opium cultivation was forced, the Company was beset by corruption, the English did have European only brothels) though the exact interpretation of events may have not been supported by history.
Which brings me to the criticism of the film. these seem to be of two variants - one, the film was not entertaining enough, and two, the anguished howl of the historians who decry its historical illegitimacy in the hope that no one may turn nationalist by seeing this film.
I will dismiss the first criticism, since that may be a matter of taste - certainly, desi (Indian) audiences raised on simpler story lines and poorer production values (see Asoka and n number of Indian period dramas) may find The Rising a bit heavy to digest.
Historically, the film may be inaccurate in the sense that Mangal Pandey may not have been the nationalist as portrayed, the relationships with the English officer and the prostitute are probably fictitious. But are they impossible? NO. The film has a paragraph disclaimer about inaccuracy at the beginning but this does not satisfy the history lobby. Why is it not possible that the official version about Pandey - that he was under the influence of bhang ( a hallucinogen) when he shot and killed an officer and then tried to shoot himself - is dressed up to cover the Company's stupidity in introducing the greased cartridges? Its not as if such "doctoring" of history has not taken place - witness the designations of "Mutiny" on the British side and "First War of Indian Independence" on the Indian side - when it was something in between? Secondly, why is The Rising being targeted when virtually every Indian film plays merry with historical events and characters? Akbar and Salim did not go to war over a dancing girl (Mughal-e-Azam), Shah Jahan was not the devoted son depictd in Taj Mahal but an ambitious usurper, one hopes that Ashoka was not the ghastly caricature depicted in Shahrukh Khan's film, and certainly India was not administered by ARMY officers as shown in Lagaan b ut by a civil ICS administration.
Similarly, Hollywood glosses over the fact that getting the German Enigma machines in WW2 was a purely British affair (U-571 shows us otherwise), and of course America won the war (no mention of UK/Common wealth forces, or more importantly - Soviet forces).
What I am saying is that films always distort history a bit - and so long as they are not conveying a completely different story - that should not matter. A purist on the matter of history myself, I am surprised by the vehemence of the historical community's attack on the film. My guess is that they do not want a false sense of nationalism to emerge on the basis of the Mangal Pandey story. They are a hundred and fifty years late in stopping the myth from taking hold.
In the end The Rising is a great film, a great story, well shot, with a few excusable omissions.
Set in 1857, the film tells the story of Mangal Pandey, a sepoy (private) in the 34th Native Infantry regiment of the Bengal Army (the army of the Presidency of Bengal, governed by the British East India Company and recruited largely from upper caste UP and Bihar stock). Mangal is depicted as an ordinary soldier who is offended by the introduction of the new Enfield rifle cartridges which were greased with pig and cow fat (the former anathema to Muslims and the latter sacred to Hindus). The movie shows him changing from a loyal Company sepoy who saved a British officer's life, to one who ends up questioning the logic of British rule. Other themes include his friendship with the same British officer, the officer's rescue and subsequent romantic relationship with a sati - a widow expected to burn herself on her husband's funeral pyre,and a prostitute who exclusively services the English brothels but falls for Pandey. The movie brings opium cultivation, corruption within the Company, the growing distance between English and Indians, as well as backward, traditional Indian attitudes into sharp focus.
All in all, the film is highly entertaining, a good story - well told, with powerful performances by the main characters. Aamir Khan is in his element, living the character of Pandey and conveying a fantastic portrayal of the soldier who realizes, bit by bit, that his loyalty to a foreign army makes him as "untouchable" as the low-caste man or prostitutes he scorns. Toby Stephens performance as the outsider in British India (Scottish, poor schooling, too fraternal with the natives) was brilliant and his chemistry with Khan was the high mark of the film's dramatic impact. The music by AR Rahman is louder than usual and some of the beats are frankly out of sync with the times ( the lesbianish gypsy dance number was a bit much!!).
The strength of the film was in conveying a sense of the time period - costumes,hair-styles, sets, manners ( the English officer's "Koi Hai"), were exactly what one could expect. The historical background was fairly accurate (sati was outlawed, opium cultivation was forced, the Company was beset by corruption, the English did have European only brothels) though the exact interpretation of events may have not been supported by history.
Which brings me to the criticism of the film. these seem to be of two variants - one, the film was not entertaining enough, and two, the anguished howl of the historians who decry its historical illegitimacy in the hope that no one may turn nationalist by seeing this film.
I will dismiss the first criticism, since that may be a matter of taste - certainly, desi (Indian) audiences raised on simpler story lines and poorer production values (see Asoka and n number of Indian period dramas) may find The Rising a bit heavy to digest.
Historically, the film may be inaccurate in the sense that Mangal Pandey may not have been the nationalist as portrayed, the relationships with the English officer and the prostitute are probably fictitious. But are they impossible? NO. The film has a paragraph disclaimer about inaccuracy at the beginning but this does not satisfy the history lobby. Why is it not possible that the official version about Pandey - that he was under the influence of bhang ( a hallucinogen) when he shot and killed an officer and then tried to shoot himself - is dressed up to cover the Company's stupidity in introducing the greased cartridges? Its not as if such "doctoring" of history has not taken place - witness the designations of "Mutiny" on the British side and "First War of Indian Independence" on the Indian side - when it was something in between? Secondly, why is The Rising being targeted when virtually every Indian film plays merry with historical events and characters? Akbar and Salim did not go to war over a dancing girl (Mughal-e-Azam), Shah Jahan was not the devoted son depictd in Taj Mahal but an ambitious usurper, one hopes that Ashoka was not the ghastly caricature depicted in Shahrukh Khan's film, and certainly India was not administered by ARMY officers as shown in Lagaan b ut by a civil ICS administration.
Similarly, Hollywood glosses over the fact that getting the German Enigma machines in WW2 was a purely British affair (U-571 shows us otherwise), and of course America won the war (no mention of UK/Common wealth forces, or more importantly - Soviet forces).
What I am saying is that films always distort history a bit - and so long as they are not conveying a completely different story - that should not matter. A purist on the matter of history myself, I am surprised by the vehemence of the historical community's attack on the film. My guess is that they do not want a false sense of nationalism to emerge on the basis of the Mangal Pandey story. They are a hundred and fifty years late in stopping the myth from taking hold.
In the end The Rising is a great film, a great story, well shot, with a few excusable omissions.
Sholay (1975)
The Ultimate Indian Blockbuster
***SOME SPOILERS*****
Sholay, directed by Ramesh Sippy in 1975, remains the most successful Hindi (perhaps Indian) film ever made. While a couple of films have made more money and recently Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jaayenge surpassed Sholay's unprecedented 5 year run at Minerva Theatre in Bombay, Sholay leads by dint of the sheer impact it made on not just Indian cinema, but popular culture in general.
The film is a loose adaptation of the Magnificent Seven (itself based on Kurosawa's Seven Samurai) and borrows freely from other movies - Hollywood or Indian. However, its adaptation is uniquely Indian and it remains, to my mind, immeasurably superior to the movies it is based upon. The story is about two crooks, Jai and Veeru, in rural central India - a region ravaged by dacoits (outlaws) - who are hired by a village landlord, Thakur to catch Gabbar Singh- a notorious outlaw - alive. Jai is the quiet reflective crook, while Veeru is loud, boisterous, impetuous, and a lothario to boot.
Veeru falls in love with Basanti - a garrulous taangewali (horsecart driver) while Jai silently wooes the Thakur's widowed daughter-in-law, Radha.
******SPOILER ALERT*****SKIP THIS SECTION IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE
It appears that Gabbar had been arrested by the Thakur while the latter was a police inspector and had exacted revenge upon escaping jail by massacring the Thakur's family. The Thakur's attempt at evening scores was met by capture and by the chopping off of his arms in a chilling scene. Hence, the need for mercenaries.
****SPOILER OVER****
Getting the bandit and the eventual shootout is the climax of the film, but it is greater than the sum of its parts. Each character, including minor ones like the jailer, the braggart lumber merchant (Surma Bhopali), the Maulvi, the family servant, have been well fleshed out and have significant parts - at the very least they entertain. The script tends to meander, but Sholay was not meant to be a simple revenge film - it conveyed a larger picture of villages, the dacoit menace so real then and even now.
The film was shot in South India at Ramnagram rather than at the place where it was set (central India) but the stark, rugged scenery was worth it. As the first 70mm film in India and the first to use stereophonic sound, Sholay secured a place in Indian film history.
Its success derives from a good script which does not allow for a dull moment (full marks to Salim-Javed for doing this), excellent direction and editing and excellent cinematography.
While the film was fairly violent it was characteristic of its period. Its legacy however, is the dialogues of the major characters which the producers were able to sell as a separate LP record in 1975 - a first in Indian cinema. A generation later, most Indians who know Hindi understand "Kitne Aadmi the?" "Loha Lohe ko Kat taa hai" "Tera Kyaa Hoga Kaalia" - so much so that these dialogues have entered the lexicon and are frequently used in commercials.
RD Burman's music was a big plus with a fantastic score and even better background music. Indeed the background music from the faux "Western" theme music to music that announced major characters like Gabbar Singh is recognized even after three decades.
Sholay made the career of Gabbar Singh as the first psychopath on the big screen ( though some might argue that Danny Denzongpa had essayed that in Dhund) in India, though he could never get a comparable role later. Sanjeev Kumar's controlled rage as the Thakur was a close second performance. Dharmendra and Amitabh Bachchan were very good with both exhibiting comedy especially in the water tank scene, though Hema Malini was a bit over the top. The supporting cast of Asrani (jailor), Surma Bhopali (Lumber merchant) and others were very good.
A must see that seems to transcend time. I am obviously biased but years of screening this film for international as well as Indian audiences have convinced me of its worldwide appeal.
Sholay, directed by Ramesh Sippy in 1975, remains the most successful Hindi (perhaps Indian) film ever made. While a couple of films have made more money and recently Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jaayenge surpassed Sholay's unprecedented 5 year run at Minerva Theatre in Bombay, Sholay leads by dint of the sheer impact it made on not just Indian cinema, but popular culture in general.
The film is a loose adaptation of the Magnificent Seven (itself based on Kurosawa's Seven Samurai) and borrows freely from other movies - Hollywood or Indian. However, its adaptation is uniquely Indian and it remains, to my mind, immeasurably superior to the movies it is based upon. The story is about two crooks, Jai and Veeru, in rural central India - a region ravaged by dacoits (outlaws) - who are hired by a village landlord, Thakur to catch Gabbar Singh- a notorious outlaw - alive. Jai is the quiet reflective crook, while Veeru is loud, boisterous, impetuous, and a lothario to boot.
Veeru falls in love with Basanti - a garrulous taangewali (horsecart driver) while Jai silently wooes the Thakur's widowed daughter-in-law, Radha.
******SPOILER ALERT*****SKIP THIS SECTION IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE
It appears that Gabbar had been arrested by the Thakur while the latter was a police inspector and had exacted revenge upon escaping jail by massacring the Thakur's family. The Thakur's attempt at evening scores was met by capture and by the chopping off of his arms in a chilling scene. Hence, the need for mercenaries.
****SPOILER OVER****
Getting the bandit and the eventual shootout is the climax of the film, but it is greater than the sum of its parts. Each character, including minor ones like the jailer, the braggart lumber merchant (Surma Bhopali), the Maulvi, the family servant, have been well fleshed out and have significant parts - at the very least they entertain. The script tends to meander, but Sholay was not meant to be a simple revenge film - it conveyed a larger picture of villages, the dacoit menace so real then and even now.
The film was shot in South India at Ramnagram rather than at the place where it was set (central India) but the stark, rugged scenery was worth it. As the first 70mm film in India and the first to use stereophonic sound, Sholay secured a place in Indian film history.
Its success derives from a good script which does not allow for a dull moment (full marks to Salim-Javed for doing this), excellent direction and editing and excellent cinematography.
While the film was fairly violent it was characteristic of its period. Its legacy however, is the dialogues of the major characters which the producers were able to sell as a separate LP record in 1975 - a first in Indian cinema. A generation later, most Indians who know Hindi understand "Kitne Aadmi the?" "Loha Lohe ko Kat taa hai" "Tera Kyaa Hoga Kaalia" - so much so that these dialogues have entered the lexicon and are frequently used in commercials.
RD Burman's music was a big plus with a fantastic score and even better background music. Indeed the background music from the faux "Western" theme music to music that announced major characters like Gabbar Singh is recognized even after three decades.
Sholay made the career of Gabbar Singh as the first psychopath on the big screen ( though some might argue that Danny Denzongpa had essayed that in Dhund) in India, though he could never get a comparable role later. Sanjeev Kumar's controlled rage as the Thakur was a close second performance. Dharmendra and Amitabh Bachchan were very good with both exhibiting comedy especially in the water tank scene, though Hema Malini was a bit over the top. The supporting cast of Asrani (jailor), Surma Bhopali (Lumber merchant) and others were very good.
A must see that seems to transcend time. I am obviously biased but years of screening this film for international as well as Indian audiences have convinced me of its worldwide appeal.
American Desi (2001)
Pathetically Amateurish Portrayal of Stereotyped Immigrants
****SOME SPOILERS**** American Desi is an amateur production which is not nuanced, comical, or even close to the reality it pokes fun at. The term "DESI" is Indian for native and is colloquially used outside South Asia by Indians to refer to anyone or anything that has an Indian flavor. Considering the lead character's determination to distance himself from things Indian, the title is misplaced. Particularly so, when it becomes clear that the film is made from an Indian-American perspective i.e. Americans of Indian descent who do not necessarily know much about India.
The characters of this movie are all one-dimensional stereotypes - the overly garrulous Sikh (played rather badly by someone of Bengali descent who could not enunciate the Punjabi accent), the ridiculous TA who speaks with his fly open, the uptight Indian girl who won't kiss the guy, and the crooked shopkeeper who overcharges the customers. The film appears to be a diatribe of dislike against Indians. Moreover, it is riven by confusion. The heroine's confusion in leading on the lead character and then slapping him for kissing her, the confusion as to whether the Indian roommates are Indian (as in FOB's - fresh off the boat immigrants) or ABCDs(American born confused desis), and confusion as to the objective of the movie - identity questions of the lead character or a general comedy about stupid Indian bumpkins.
Adding to this mess are crucial details - a north-Indian aarti (prayer invocation) performed by an obviously south-Indian family, problems about the details of Muslims praying are examples.
In short, the film is about how Indians are perceived by Indian-Americans, not about their lives. It is only marginally more accurate than the horrific unPC portrayals of Indians (and other South Asians) in Hollywood movies. As an aside, while APu from the SImpsons is not the best (as in accurate) representation, his character is developed enough to be funny and is fairly well researched.
In the end, the viewer is left mystified as to the object of the movie apart from making a few crude jokes about Indians. Perhaps this is the result of angst against "Mummy, Daddy" translated into celluloid. Don't get me wrong, I can take any jokes about Indians and Bhaji on the Beach, Bend it Like Beckham, The Kumars at No.42 (BBC TV series) are great examples of sharply humorous images of expatriate Indians; but this film's humor is based on the crudest of devices and failed to amuse me.
The characters of this movie are all one-dimensional stereotypes - the overly garrulous Sikh (played rather badly by someone of Bengali descent who could not enunciate the Punjabi accent), the ridiculous TA who speaks with his fly open, the uptight Indian girl who won't kiss the guy, and the crooked shopkeeper who overcharges the customers. The film appears to be a diatribe of dislike against Indians. Moreover, it is riven by confusion. The heroine's confusion in leading on the lead character and then slapping him for kissing her, the confusion as to whether the Indian roommates are Indian (as in FOB's - fresh off the boat immigrants) or ABCDs(American born confused desis), and confusion as to the objective of the movie - identity questions of the lead character or a general comedy about stupid Indian bumpkins.
Adding to this mess are crucial details - a north-Indian aarti (prayer invocation) performed by an obviously south-Indian family, problems about the details of Muslims praying are examples.
In short, the film is about how Indians are perceived by Indian-Americans, not about their lives. It is only marginally more accurate than the horrific unPC portrayals of Indians (and other South Asians) in Hollywood movies. As an aside, while APu from the SImpsons is not the best (as in accurate) representation, his character is developed enough to be funny and is fairly well researched.
In the end, the viewer is left mystified as to the object of the movie apart from making a few crude jokes about Indians. Perhaps this is the result of angst against "Mummy, Daddy" translated into celluloid. Don't get me wrong, I can take any jokes about Indians and Bhaji on the Beach, Bend it Like Beckham, The Kumars at No.42 (BBC TV series) are great examples of sharply humorous images of expatriate Indians; but this film's humor is based on the crudest of devices and failed to amuse me.
Dhoom (2004)
Don't think and you might be entertained
****** SPOILERS FOLLOW - BEWARE******* Dhoom is very different from the standard Hindi film fare and combines glamor, action, and oodles of skin. It seems to have become somewhat of a cult film and the comments on this site seem highly appreciative. I may be one of the few dissenting notes here.
I saw this movie last night on video - and I agree that it is better watched on the big screen. But what struck me was the complete suspension of disbelief - fairly standard in a Bollywood flick, but this one was trying to be more.
Lets take the plot. A gang of pizza delivery boys use souped-up bikes to hijack armored bank trucks and carry out incredible heists. Would a accompanying police escort stop at a traffic light? - hello, its the police, they would switch on their siren and move to keep pace with the armored truck. Secondly, Where are these deserted highways close to Bombay/Mumbai where one can speed at 260kmph (150 miles per hour) and also find no other traffic? Third, the greatest strength of the police is their organization - numbers, skilled specialists etc. However, the hero, who vacillates between incompetence and retardation works alone, with a garage mechanic/motorcycle aficionado who is more hindrance than help. The rest of the police squad seem to be very nonchalant about the stakeouts - treating them more like some chore than the urgent action they are supposed to be. Fourth, after a warning is received, why would the Chief Minister's charity organizers hold up the collection box with the money in full view of the public(and robbers)? Fifth, where do the robbers emerge from suddenly? - Why wouldn't a large trailer truck be suspected and searched as a reasonable place to stow away bikes? Finally, what sort of moronic investigator reveals all his plans to the arrested suspect while "taking a walk" as if they were sauntering in Lodhi Gardens? Why didn't he cuff the suspect(s)when he had them on camera?
No complaints about skin and sex, but realistically, where does one find fishnet stocking clad girls (in the hundreds) rooting for bike-rider racers in Bombay? I mean if the theme is total fantasy then why have a plot at all - just a series of music videos with a few dollops of sex would have sufficed - oops, thats what it was anyway, right? I tend to be harsher on movies that pretend to have a plot, or be different. I daresay for large numbers of people Dhoom is a first in terms of action, cinematography, plot etc. It is highly different from the girl-marries-boy with wedding-spectacle of 3000 dancers. A tighter plot and some intelligence from the scriptwriters would have made this into a first-rate film.
I think everyone acted well - and Abhishek seems fairly similar to his father 30 years ago. Uday Chopra played the nitwit pretty well, though again, why cast an imbecile as a crucial player? Surely, the police can find motorcycle specialists with moderately higher intelligence levels AND humor?
I saw this movie last night on video - and I agree that it is better watched on the big screen. But what struck me was the complete suspension of disbelief - fairly standard in a Bollywood flick, but this one was trying to be more.
Lets take the plot. A gang of pizza delivery boys use souped-up bikes to hijack armored bank trucks and carry out incredible heists. Would a accompanying police escort stop at a traffic light? - hello, its the police, they would switch on their siren and move to keep pace with the armored truck. Secondly, Where are these deserted highways close to Bombay/Mumbai where one can speed at 260kmph (150 miles per hour) and also find no other traffic? Third, the greatest strength of the police is their organization - numbers, skilled specialists etc. However, the hero, who vacillates between incompetence and retardation works alone, with a garage mechanic/motorcycle aficionado who is more hindrance than help. The rest of the police squad seem to be very nonchalant about the stakeouts - treating them more like some chore than the urgent action they are supposed to be. Fourth, after a warning is received, why would the Chief Minister's charity organizers hold up the collection box with the money in full view of the public(and robbers)? Fifth, where do the robbers emerge from suddenly? - Why wouldn't a large trailer truck be suspected and searched as a reasonable place to stow away bikes? Finally, what sort of moronic investigator reveals all his plans to the arrested suspect while "taking a walk" as if they were sauntering in Lodhi Gardens? Why didn't he cuff the suspect(s)when he had them on camera?
No complaints about skin and sex, but realistically, where does one find fishnet stocking clad girls (in the hundreds) rooting for bike-rider racers in Bombay? I mean if the theme is total fantasy then why have a plot at all - just a series of music videos with a few dollops of sex would have sufficed - oops, thats what it was anyway, right? I tend to be harsher on movies that pretend to have a plot, or be different. I daresay for large numbers of people Dhoom is a first in terms of action, cinematography, plot etc. It is highly different from the girl-marries-boy with wedding-spectacle of 3000 dancers. A tighter plot and some intelligence from the scriptwriters would have made this into a first-rate film.
I think everyone acted well - and Abhishek seems fairly similar to his father 30 years ago. Uday Chopra played the nitwit pretty well, though again, why cast an imbecile as a crucial player? Surely, the police can find motorcycle specialists with moderately higher intelligence levels AND humor?
Junoon (1979)
Captures the mood of 1857 without jingoism
***Contains some SPOILERS***
Junoon is Shyam Benegal's adaptation of author Ruskin Bond's novel, Flight of the Pigeons, about the interaction between an English mother and daughter and an Indian nawab during the Indian revolt of 1857. Shashi Kapoor is the local feudal nawab married to Shabana Azmi, and his brother-in-law,played by Naseeruddin Shah, hates the British.
The movie captures the segregation of the English and Indian people, which was partially responsible for the mutiny and subsequent revolt against the English. The movie is a muted love story between the nawab and the English girl, played by Nafisa Ali. The nawab and his retainers kill members of the English cantonment but the girl and her mother survive at the nawab's mercy. He falls for the girl but her mother prevails upon him to wait for a clearer resolution of the ongoing war.
Superb acting, photography and costumes/sets mark this 1977 film. My favorite scenes are the charge by Indian cavalry against the British and the one where Naseeruddin Shah reveals that the rebels have lost Delhi. His "Ham Dilli haar gaye (we have lost Delhi)!!" is a heartfelt lament that underscores the significance of the event and his own acting prowess.
A must see for anyone who is interested in India.
Junoon is Shyam Benegal's adaptation of author Ruskin Bond's novel, Flight of the Pigeons, about the interaction between an English mother and daughter and an Indian nawab during the Indian revolt of 1857. Shashi Kapoor is the local feudal nawab married to Shabana Azmi, and his brother-in-law,played by Naseeruddin Shah, hates the British.
The movie captures the segregation of the English and Indian people, which was partially responsible for the mutiny and subsequent revolt against the English. The movie is a muted love story between the nawab and the English girl, played by Nafisa Ali. The nawab and his retainers kill members of the English cantonment but the girl and her mother survive at the nawab's mercy. He falls for the girl but her mother prevails upon him to wait for a clearer resolution of the ongoing war.
Superb acting, photography and costumes/sets mark this 1977 film. My favorite scenes are the charge by Indian cavalry against the British and the one where Naseeruddin Shah reveals that the rebels have lost Delhi. His "Ham Dilli haar gaye (we have lost Delhi)!!" is a heartfelt lament that underscores the significance of the event and his own acting prowess.
A must see for anyone who is interested in India.