Directed by Mani Ratnam, Bombay tells the story of Shekhar, a Hindu journalism student, and Shaila Bano, a Muslim schoolgirl, and the challenges they face as an inter-faith couple living in Bombay during the Bombay Riots.
A journalism student studying in Bombay, Shekhar returns to his coastal hometown in Tamil Nadu to visit his father and discuss his future. One morning, he crosses paths with Shaila, a Muslim girl on her way to school. As the two lock eyes, the winds from the water blow Shaila’s burka from her face, catching her off-guard and exposing her to Shekhar. Instantaneously captivated by her beauty, Shekhar finds himself hopelessly determined to marry her. In true Indian cinematic fashion, Shekhar sweeps Shaila off her feet through a number of carefully devised encounters, leaving the two lovers separated only by their religious differences.
Upon learning of Shekhar and Shaila’s plan to marry, the couples’ families are outraged: Shekhar’s father threatens disownment while Shaila’s father looks furiously for a Muslim for Shaila to marry. Desperate to stay together and eager to escape the consequences dictated by their respective parents, Shekhar and Shaila elope to Bombay.
Soon after arriving in the city, Shaila becomes pregnant with twin sons, Kabir and Kamal. Instead of choosing to raise the boys as one religion over the other, Shekhar and Shaila teach them the values and traditions of both Hinduism and Islam. For six years, Shekhar, Shaila, Kabir and Kamal live happily; Shekhar and Shaila have seemingly overcome the odds of marrying across religious lines. However, this period of peace does not last. With the demolition of the Babri Masjid in December of 1992 come rising religious tensions and a surge of fatal riots between Hindu and Muslim extremists throughout Bombay. After watching their sons come inches from being executed by a group of religious extremists demanding to know their religious identities, Shekhar and Shaila begin to fear for the safety of their family.
With the knowledge of the dangerous events occurring in Bombay, Shekhar’s father and Shaila’s parents put aside their religious differences and travel to the city to help care for Kabir and Kamal. Initially pugnacious in their exchanges, Shekhar and Shaila’s fathers are soon too absorbed in their love for their grandsons to fight with one another. Shortly after their arrival, however, Bombay enters a state of complete chaos, eventually breaking apart the family. Shekhar and Shaila, orphaned and childless, find themselves desperately searching for their sons in the wreckage of Bombay, losing hope as days pass and the riots continue to take the innocent as its victims.
In the film’s last scene, Shekhar finally breaks down and demands his own death, should things continue as they are. He becomes hysterical and pours a rioter’s kerosene over his head while Shaila begs him not to give up on their sons. Transfixed by Shekhar’s wisdom of the ludacris and unable to counter his arguments of the war’s wrongful nature, the rioters drop their weapons. As members of opposing religious groups surrender themselves and join hands, Kabir and Kamal emerge and reunite with their parents.
Bombay initially unfolds in familiar manner to many Tamil films:
- Stage 1: boy meets sees girl, boy falls in love with girl, boy and girl break out in song, girl instantaneously loves boy
- Stage 2: couple encounters obstacle of cultural origin (caste, status, or religious difference), conflict brews, “Will the relationship survive?” question looms
- Stage 3: couple overcomes obstacle, film ends happily
With that said, I found Bombay to go above and beyond my expectations of a Tamil film. First, Bombay excelled at conveying the emotions of each and every one of the characters. Second, the film both accurately and effectively depicted the realities of war, notably how it victimizes not only those on the frontlines and their families; everyone is affected by war.
One scene (shown in more ways than one) that I thought was especially emotionally impacting was that which showed Shekhar and Shaila having to look through the bodies of those who had fallen victim to the weapons of the extremists. Not only did it convey the sheer number of casualties of the riots, but it also illustrated an example of a parents’ worst nightmare.
Another scene I found similarly significant was the scene in which Shekhar is caught between a Muslim and a Hindu. As the two men argue over which group is at fault for the situation, Shekhar ends the conversation, essentially reminding them that such an argument is the reason his own children are missing. This scene represents a person or group’s ability to lose sight of the most important aspect of a war: the lives that are lost in fighting it.
On the other hand, I also acknowledge that Bombay has its flaws. The aspect of the film that I found least developed was its way of developing the relationship between Shekhar and Shaila. While I do believe that “love conquers all,” I also recognize that a relationship relies heavily on the beliefs and values one is raised with. As the product of their parents, Shekhar and Shaila likely would have encountered many more conflicts than were implied.
While Bombay had its weaknesses, they were outnumbered by its many strengths. All things considered, I found Ratnam’s execution of the emotional and political turmoil behind the Bombay Riots to be an overall victory.
Both Eva and Annie successfully described the film's plot, themes, and message, though both reviews lacked in criticism of the film as a cinematic piece.
ReplyDeleteIn Eva's review, we only learned the story and Eva's opinion of the film; that it was effective and moving. Eva did not provide evidence for this opinion, nor did she touch on any of the film techniques or the actors' performances. Eva concludes that "the basic goal of Indian cinemais to create emotional responses in its audience," an assertion that would benefit from some discussion of the directorial or design choices. Eva's review leaves us with little understanding about the film aside from its plot.
Annie's review gives us a similar plot summary, but this is followed by her critique of the film. I like how her critique mirrored her understanding of the movie: she initially sees it as just another Tamil film with cheesy romance, cultural conflicts, and a happy ending; but the film redeems itself in its message about families in war times. I found Annie's discussion of particular scenes to be helpful to her argument, though they address plot more than any other cinematic aspect.
I wish Annie and Eva had looked at Bombay as a cinematic piece more than as a story; that said, I feel that they both conveyed what they wanted to convey.
While I superficially agreed with both analyses, they both lacked in content and analysis. If I simply wanted a plot summary, either of these reviews would have sufficed. However, there was no discussion of important thematic elements of the movie, cinematic techniques employed by the director, or character developments. I thought that the beginning half of the movie was extremely boring because of the "cheesy" factor that Annie notes. It follows the typical formula that the other Tamil films have followed thus far. This section of the movie was quite unfortunate because it was both unoriginal and unpersuasive. The scene where the lover boy comes into the girl's home and slashes her wrist with a knife is an example of how deep his love for her goes. However, to an audience watching this scene, it is both graphic and highly disturbing. This scene was extremely over-the-top and failed to persuade the audience of the reality of the main character's love for each other, making the scene ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThe first half of the movie could have tied in rather well with the second half if the inter-faith relationship was elaborated. If the families strongly opposed and acted on their threats, perhaps the riots later on in the story would have made more sense. But since the families were quick to apologize, it seemed rather strange that the riots were still going on as their family was reconciling.
I agree with Eva when she comments on the way in which each character's emotions were highlighted in the movie. The close-ups to the faces of the children and parents clearly portrayed their thought process and emotion in the scenes. For instance, when the twins are separated from their parents and are looking for them, the close-ups of their faces reveal desperation and total confusion.
While I appreciated the plot summaries of both reviews, I did not find there to be sufficient analysis in either write-up.
I agree with Annie's analysis in that this film goes beyond the typical Bollywood romance/masala film plot. However, I think both Annie and Eva could have commented on the relationship between the twin boys and their grandfathers. The birth of the twin boys themselves is symbolic because through the two religions of the parents, two children are born. The twin boys represent everything that the movies is also trying to represent; two different beings living next to eachother. This concept is best represented in the scene after the two grandfathers reunite at their children's home. The Hindu grandfather is harrassed by a violent group of Muslims, and is conflicted because he can either a) tell the truth that he is Hindu but risk being harmed or even killed
ReplyDelete( and risk his young grandson's life as well), or b) lie to them and betray his faith (in his mind) by telling them he is Hindu. Luckily, his grandson's other grandfather, and his former enemy, rescues him and tells the gang that they are brothers. This is a turning point in their relationship because both realize how important their lives and the lives of their grandsons are. More so, the story line shows that underneath the political violence, the people who are fighting are each someone's child. THe reality is that these two families are finding common ground beyond their religions while the rest of the city is killing each other over the different religions.
ReplyDeleteI think both Eva and Annie addressed this topic, however, I wish one of them had included this pivotal scene in their analysis.
My initial impression of the movie was similar to Eva’s, was it two different writers? However, after further reflection I think the contrast in emotion was effective. The audience witnessed the two main characters during their happiest days and darkest days. I think the movie did an excellent job showing a dynamic spectrum of emotion.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Eva in that the film pulled the audience into the narrative to share the distress of the parents searching for their lost child. I felt anxious and fearful with the mother and father searching through dead bodies and chaotic streets to find their boys.
There was an interesting moment in the film that I was surprised that neither review mentioned. I thought it was very clever to have one of the twin boys saved by a transgender woman. It reinforced the message that life need not be so polarized: Muslim/Hindu or Man/woman.
This is a powerful message indeed, however I think the film also sent an “anti-religion” message. Religion can be a beautiful, harmonious, and peaceful human practice and I think the story would have been even more powerful if the two main characters continued to practice their own rituals and allowed their sons to embrace whatever they wish.
I also agree with Annie, this film was adherent to the classic Tamilian cinema timeline, and exceeded my expectations.