Hrishikesh Mukherjee's Anand (1971): Being Simple Is Difficult

I can't believe its been so long since i have written anything in this blog, more so because when in my life I have nothing else to look forward to or excite me there has always been and will always be Cinema and my film collection (sad but a true fact, for a poor friendless gal like me, can't help it if people are just jealous of my awesome personality and breath-taking looks.....sorry I digress :p :p ). Anyways i think one of the main reasons for me taking so long to put up a blog post is just the fact that I tend to over-analyse everything a tad too much. From now on my blog posts will be regular update, and well direct from heart.


So to start with Im going to write about Hrishikesh Mukherjee's Anand, a film that is set to be a start-up effort in the film movement of 70s known as 'middle cinema'. Middle cinema as the turn suggests is a compromise between mainstream commercial cinema and the parallel art cinema such as that of Satyajit Ray. Here were directors who were looking for styles to express their stories that would not just attract an audience to cinema hall but would keep them entertained as well as force them to think too. For me Hrishikesh da has always been one of the champion in this style, others included Gulzar, Bimal Roy and Basu Chatterjee. These directors/writers always spoke in a vocabulary that would attract anyone and that would entertain everyone and at the same time push the very same audience to seek the message and ponder on it. Here the messages were not of some great revolution or social upheavals or social evils; here messages were those of concern to an audience of 1970s, related to unemployment, shift in family traditions, fight between morals and monetary concerns, etc.


Coming Back to Anand...

Anand I believe is a story that epitomizes the saying "it's simple to be difficult, but it is difficult to be simple".
Anand is a very simple film to be viewed and understood, it doesn't have too many sub-texts, nor too many over dramatic twists in the plot, or something that would make you jump far off from the edge of your seats. This film is a simple story, with simple characters, in a simple plot, keeping in mind simple themes. Yet all together the film leaves an ever-lasting impact on the minds of its audience.


The film opens with Dr. Bhaskar (Amitabh Bachchan) being facilitated for his book Anand. As he takes on the stage he tells us that Anand is not a mere work of fiction, it is about scribblings in his own personal dairy, it is about a man called Anand. Then the story begins in a flashback, which covers the entire film from there on.


Anand (Rajesh Khanna) is a happy lively guy, who is suffering from Liver cancer; he comes to Mumbai and befriends Dr. Kulkarni (Ramesh Deo) and Dr. Bhaskar. Bhaskar is a straight forward man, who doesn't know how to mince his words but for sure doesn't know how to express his own personal feelings. Anand is exact opposite of that, he is completely free, someone who is in love with talking and with 'life' itself; even though he is very well aware that he is dying; yet that doesn't deter his spirits. This friendship is all about how opposites attract. Anand teaches Bhaskar and a lot of other characters in the film on how they should live their lives freely and should learn to be expressive; that is why he even helps Bhaskar to express his feelings to Renu (his patient who had come to him for a treatment of pneumonia, but whom he had never had got the courage to propose).
One of the most interesting characters in the film, other than Anand himself, is Isabhai (Johnny Walker). Anand who loves to catch hold of strangers, in efforts to make them laugh, by calling them 'Murarilal'; in Isabhai he finds a complete foil of his comic plan, as he responds with as much enthusiasm and acting as Anand.


There is nothing over-the-top dramatic about Anand, the audience from the very beginning are aware of the fact that Anand will die in the end; yet they still find themselves hoping that he would survive it all (one of them was me, when I saw the film for the very first time). The only dramatic moments (keeping in mind how much our cinema audience love the drama and the loud music accompanying that) are provided when the other characters in the film find out about Anand's condition and his impending death. This includes Mrs. Kulkarni, Dr. Kulkarni's wife, who is a loving kind hearted woman who takes instant liking to Anand and makes him her brother. Next is Renu, for whom Anand is like a brother as well as a brother-in-law, who helped her and Dr. Bhaskar express their feelings of love. Then there is Nurse D'susa (Lalita Pawar) who is the strict matron of the nursing home, but who is later taken in by the charm of Anand and thinks of him as her own son. And last but not the least, is Isabhai whose chance meeting turns into a good friendship. Hrishkesh Mukherji takes his turn into drama as he one by one reveals Anand's condition to each of these characters, who then handle the news in their own different ways whether through prayers or through comedy.


Anand, might be a simple story, but there is always more than what meets the eyes. Anand is a message as well, in the times when people where running after money and making basic ends of life meet, they forget that life is not about how long it is but about how big you make it. Other than this there are other social elements as well, such as poverty, pessimism in society, empty aspirations and empty ideologies; that both Bhaskar and Anand continuously make fun of.


Two most mentionable things about the film are; its cinematography and its music; both of which provide a great height to the story. The music lends a pace and an emotion to the story. None of the songs in the film look unexplainably imposed in the plot; they gel well in the screenplay to take the story forward. Songs penned by Gulzar and Yogesh are soft and hummable and complete go with the feel of the film. Salil Choudhary's music is near to prefect as there is hardly any jarring or loud note escaping into the plot, unnecessarily.


Cinematographer Jaywant Pathare seems completely in sync with the director's vision and the story. He seems at the top of his game and knows how to utilize the space given to him, as most of the film has been shot indoors, often being confined to just a room for quite a few sequences. He is able to use his creative vision all throughout.  


Anand is a superb comedy-drama, a rare combination but only a master such as Hrishikesh Mukherjee can achieve it. It is blessed with talented actors, and great technicians. It is a film that is about life, hope, friendship and love. It provided a perfect start to the era of 'Middle Cinema'.

    Anand (1971)
    Director and Editor: Hrishikesh Mukherjee
    Starring: Rajesh Khanna, Amitabh Bahchan, 
     Johnny Walker, Lalita Pawar, Ramesh Deo, 
     Sumita sanyal, Seema, Dara Singh
    Writers: Bimal Dutt, D.N. Mukherjee, 
     Hrishikesh Mukherjee, Gulzar
   Cinematographer: Jaywant Pathare
   Music Director: Salil Choudhary
   Lyrics: Gulzar and Yogesh
   Producer: Hrishikesh Mukherjee & N.C. Sippy

A personal attempt to understand Films vis-à-vis the Catharsis Theory

I find the theory of cathartic effect quite interesting to explore. Catharsis is the sense of purging of one's emotions and inner held feelings. I first learnt this term when I was studying about classical literature and Aristotle. The term catharsis had first made an appearance in Aristotle Poetics, the term literally means ‘purging or cleansing of one’s emotion’. Aristotle taught that viewing tragic plays gave people emotional release (katharsis) from negative feelings such as pity, fear, and anger. By watching the characters in the play experience tragic events, the negative feelings of the viewer were presumably purged and cleansed. This emotional cleansing was believed to be beneficial to both the individual and society.

For example, in the most layman terms I will put it as I understand it, say if you are currently facing a problem such as say Corruption or price rise or legal injustice, etc; and then you see a film where this topic is taken up, explored and then it all ends with a happy note where everyone who were at fault were punished and greater good triumphs, so you would leave the theater feeling a sense of personal let go. You will feel as if you have just seen your problems being solved and your inner emotions are all cleansed with that feeling of personal content in the end.

That is what Aristotle said about theatre. Theatre, the only medium of mass entertainment and communication back then, was used as a medium by the government to induce the sort of catharsis’ amongst the people at that time, so that once people are purged out of their inner feelings such as dissatisfaction, violence, hatred, etc then a status quo is again established back where no one questions anyone or anything.

The most recent example where I found a society effectively using this theory to purge the emotions of its people, rather than letting them free to explore a subject or issue was when I saw Pakistani director Shoaib Mansoor's acclaimed film 'Bol'. Bol is very good film, it is sensitive portrayal of plight of women in a Pakistani society. It is feminist in its issues and it is contemporary in its age. Such a film that criticizes a society while being very much a part of a conservative society such as the one in Pakistan is an uplifting and brave attempt not just for its director but also for the Pakistan's film industry. But one thing that didn't quite please me while I was watching this film was its end. The film ended in, well how to put it, somewhat utopian state of being, where in the end everything is perfect, hope and good rejoice and government and society understand not just their faults but also their true responsibilities.

This sort of semi-utopian ending was also a part of Shoaib Mansoor's directorial debut, Khuda Ke Liye (KKL). KKL was another bold and heartfelt attempt to cleanse a society from inside. It was based on the backdrop of 9/11 attack on world trade center and its aftereffects as in the racial profiling, and the American-Afghan war, etc. I personally loved that film as well, it came way before Bol and was being a well circulated and talked about film in film festivals and all. It was a great social drama.

But in that too the end of the film doesn't leave more to be demanded as in the end, as the film ends with everything getting solved in the end. I don't know that where I find both the lack a bit when it comes towards an end the film, the society and people portrayed in the film do change for a betterment but it is too much of betterment too soon, so that's why I call it a semi- utopian state.

I'm a sucker for open endings in film, personally speaking. But not like that any film and every film with opening ending, the film needs to be good and strong script and good direction and all. I feel a strong social sensitive script supported by a good direction and good actors go a long way to stay in your mind and perplex you with the issues it throws up at you. And an open ending makes it just a sort of icing on the cake, for me on a personal level.

So yes, coming to films and cathartic effect they induce in the viewers. I feel that in movies like Wanted and Bodyguard, when people see violence on screen it relieves them of their own inner feeling and emotions of violence and anger and rage. Catharsis Theory suggests that rather than being harmful, the violence portrayed in Mass Media, may actually have positive effects as well on a society. The central assumption of the Catharsis Theory is that people in the course of daily life, often build up a lot of frustrations and inner feelings of anger, that often fall short of getting any positive vent to release it self. In such a situation being vicarious participants in others’ aggression often helps in releasing those personal inner feelings of tension and rage.

Films often induce emotions in people that led them to vent their own internal tensions and trapped feelings. It is like crying, crying is said often said to be good for a person both in physical and psychological ways. Crying is good for eyes (or so I’ve heard) and it leads you to purge yourself of your pent up feelings as well, that otherwise might have found some other negative ways to be vented, who knows, may be something like rage, aggression, or even a nervous breakdown.

So even though I believe crying is good at times, and so is the purging of one’s emotions by being passively involved in the actions of social media, but still there is a part of me that believes that not all purging of emotions is a good thing on the whole. I remember this research paper that I came across, during the semester when I had Film Studies as a part of my Master’s course. This one was about the films of Amitabh Bachhan and his image of angry young man in the 80s and early 90s. (Sorry can’t remember anything about the exact names of the topic or the author, right now, will certainly look it up again). This particular writer pointed out how the society of 80s was going through a sense of personal and social dissatisfaction, most of which was directed towards the Government and its other wings. So Amitabh’s angry young man character portrayed general emotions of anger and discontent with present social systems and all. But this was a careful plot, keeping in mind the theory of Catharsis. The Angry Young Man did expose the emotions, but then it provided a definitive ending of all the troubles and dissatisfaction within itself. Simply put, problems where taken up, exposed, fought over and very conveniently solved with the victory of good over evil. So when someone left the theater after watching such a film they left with a feeling of satisfaction that even in their lives everything will come back to essential betterment, thus leaving behind all their emotions of discontent with the present system back at their seats itself.

So well yes it seems like a clever plan, general public discontent, watches film, releases it’s pent up emotions in a passive manner and everything goes back to a status quo as all the emotions are purged so nothing left to now work on or build up on. Seems and sounds too simple to believe, but well power of visual medium and in particular the power of films is something I truly believe in, on a personal front.

So well if Catharsis Theory is infact true, then I would say that there is a time when we should not let it to numb our senses in a negative way, as in my most laymen used language we shouldn’t let it dumb us back into a state of contentment in  status quo in the personal and social front. If Films are a mirror of our society and are meant to be an effective medium of communication and a toll of positive social change, then why use it to make people purge of their emotions that can actually induce a positive effect. Yes, rage anger and violence are few emotions that when released or cleansed through being a passive witness to a violent act is a good thing; but one should not turn so passive in their actual social scenario as well. When the hero is thrashing up the villain in a film and the audience viewing it is clapping and feeling as if a part of the action and themselves relieving their anger; this doesn’t go on to mean that if you see someone thrashing up someone in real life (no matter how wrong or right that must be) you take the passive stance of an audience there as well, and let someone else take law in their hands.

Movies are supposed to be an empowering tool, as it has a far more reach and wider connect to a whole lot of common audience. It is something that should take up people’s issues, problems and general life woes and transform it into something entertaining, yet something so helpful as it induces a solution that makes people empowered enough to tackle these issues in real life as well, instead of just believing that like in the movies, come what may, in the end everything will end up being Happy positive and all evil will be punished. That is Hope for sure one should work towards, and I mean Work Towards.

Hema Malini’s “Tell Me O Kkhuda” (2011) - Tell me kyun khuda?

When Hema Malini announced that she is going to re-launch her daughter, it was tented to be a magnum opus vehicle, but there were just 3 things that I was sure what that film won't have:
1. Esha Deol's old childish acting
2. Esha Deol crying; and

3. Esha Deol's real parents playing her reel parents.

But well voila! As luck would have it, the last one was actually there in the film. Yes the film had both Dharmendar and Hema in it. And well voila! Again it had the first two as well.

I took my chances with the film with quite some interest mainly due to two reasons; one because of the magnificent stars it boosted of as its cast and two because it was Hema Malini's directorial venture.
There was a magnificent array of stars casted indeed but what I found to be, far too predictable characters and roles. And sensitive subjects were taken up in the plot but their handling showed an immaturity of mind and time.

TMOK is reminiscent of Hema Malini’s debut directorial venture ‘Dil Aashna Hai’, similar central story, somewhat similar characters, and well same upper-handed take on feminism. The movie is filled with predictable story lines and immature handling of a sensitive subject.

The only difference is that there the protagonist searched for her biological mother, in particular, and here the protagonist went out looking for her biological father. Also I believe Divya Bharati was really a good actor of her time. Comparing that to anything that Esha Deol did on screen in TMOK is no less of a shame for the film.

At least after you know about ‘Dil Aashna Hai’ you feel relaxed that as to why throughout you felt the film’s story line to be outdated and something hurriedly rehashed.

So the story is about young author Tanya, she is hip modern and a girl who lives her life on her own terms; yet at the same time she is still grounded, a loving daughter and a great friend. But Tanya’s world comes collapsing all at once, when she gets to know that she is an adopted child; and so begins her search for her real parents. All she has as a start is a hospital bracelet that has just a visible letter ‘A’ on it. Her quest leads her to Rajasthan to Abhay Pratap Singh (Vinod Khanna), to Turkey to meet Altaf Zardari (Rishi Kapoor); and finally to Goa to meet Anthony/Tony Costelo (Dharmendar). In tow are her best friends Kuki (Chandan Roy Sanyal), and boyfriend Jai (Arjan Bajwa).

Now the deal with the story I would say is that how a girl who is a young writer, with a great deal of passion for life and a strong head on her shoulder; suddenly falls totally downwards once she gets to know that she is adopted. And the journey that was should have been an emotional one just became about a girl and her friends going on extensive vacations/ adventures.

Another thing is how is it that if the hospital records shows Dharmendar’s screen name as ‘Tony Costelo’ then how come the bracelet on the baby wrist as letter ‘A’ in it. Does the Hospital staff assume by itself that ‘Tony’ is always short for ‘Anthony’?

Another point is that story becomes far too predictable for me at the time when I realize that there is a slight scope of the girl achieving a happy ending even before the first half ends. When does that ever happen in our typical Indian Bollywood films?

I think the director and producer’s main concern was just one; the film’s supposed to be a Deol re-launcher, so let’s forget everything and just makes sure there is no frame left without her being present there. There is no space for audience to miss her even a bit, at lest I believe separation makes you grow fonder, but this movie proves me all wrong there. Esha Deol’s earlier absence from film industry made no one fonder, but yes her come-back did make everyone sure that there are something’s you can never mend. And yes, also that at times parent’s are ready to do anything for their kids, even though it might be spend their money and time on some tasteless talented offspring, and demeaning their own self and close friends for the sake of same.

You ask me why I’m so overtly irritated by this film.

1. the most basic response-waste of my money and time
2. the waste of good supporting cast, that was over all definitely much better than the one who got all the screen time and space.
3. Talented parents have given birth to such an amateurish offspring and then they are ready to support her even though they too very well know that it is all a waste in the end.
4. The film is just a proof of what extend parents are ready to go to  support their most wasteful progeny, which irritates me, especially if I earlier in the day get a lecture from my parents about my recent credit card bills and shopping expenses.

What irritates me even more Dharmendar’s excessive hamming as the Don Tony Costelo, and listening to Esha Deol as the narrator (I’m telling you there was no escape from her face and sound in this film).

Well other than the star cast and all, even the music and songs of the film are quite. There is no song that catches your attention, both in terms of listening and vision. I just felt that there was just one love track being dragged all throughout, vaguely and weirdly in between at random times.

The story has too many flaws. Not only does it reek of being a rehashed version of ‘Dil Aashna Hai’ and ‘Mamma Mia’, but it is also about loosely integrating unnecessary social issue all in one, just for the heck of it.

So all in all I would rate the film as 1.5 out of 5. One mark for the supporting cast, and seeing Vinod Khanna, Rishi Kapoor, and Dharmendar all together once again in one frame. And rest of the marks for the loving and doting parents, wish mine could learn something from them, and please let me say I’m definitely more talented in my own field that than chick in the film.  

Tell Me O Kkhuda (2011)

Director: Hema Malini & Mayur Puri

Starring: Esha Deol (rest is all the cast that shouldn’t be mentioned in the same line as of her, I believe)

Producer: Hema Malini

Writer: Hema Malini & Mayur Puri

Music Director: Pritam

Mahesh Bhatt’s Arth- Too Many Meanings

Ok so yesterday I had decided to write a review of Arth and look at the chance happening, the movie came on d TV. That is one reason why I still love DD, movies there are not just for entertainment n advertisements.

So Arth is a moving and heart warming 1982 film. The film like many of Mahesh Bhatt film's draws quite closely from his own personal life. it is a semi-autobiographical film, often touted to be Bhatt's own confession of his extramarital affair to actress Praveen Babi. 

Arth is a movie about an orphan girl Pooja, who grew up with a dream of owning a house, and is married to Inder who is a film director. Inder and Pooja have bought a new house, but it is soon revealed that Inder bought this house out of his own guilt due to the on going affair he is having with an actress Kavita. The time when Inder comes clean to Pooja about his affair and leaves her to go and stay with Kavita, Pooja's life falls apart. She is guided in her journey out of the faulty marriage and to independence by singer Raj, and her friend and her husband.

The best thing is that all d characters of d film are well defined and beautifully etched out both artistically and realistically. 
The three central characters are so complex and beautifully portrayed- Shabana Azmi as Pooja, Kulbhusan Kharbanda as Inder and Smita Patil as Kavita.

What I like most about the character of Kavita is that that even though she is the ‘other woman’ in the story, you don’t feel any negative emotions towards her. You feel a sense of sympathy for her at every point. She is a woman suffering from schizophrenia, a woman who teeters on an edge all the time.

Even when she has got what she wanted, the man she loves, her guilt and her illness don't allow her to be free in enjoying that as well. She is a woman who loves a man with so much of passion that even she herself is unable to control.

I think the most beautiful portrayal of this character comes out in the scene where she in one of her moment of illness, blames Pooja for scattering her mangalsutra beads all over the house in bid to hurt Kavita. This scene best exemplifies the edge on which the character is walking, and her guilt. Also worth mentioning, is the final scene between Kavita and Inder, where she decides to leave him forever. All this comes after Pooja has met her an d even forgiven her for wreaking her marriage, but maybe that real interaction is enough to push Kavita out of her guilt and in realization of what is right and what is wrong.

Next is the character of Inder. A man trapped in his own feelings for two women. He is a character trapped in his own ego issues. Inder is a character that can't hear rejection. When the client rejects his ad film he gets into physical fight with him, when his secretary rejects him by handing over his resignation letter he shouts at him and tears the letter, when Kavita rejects him he gets mad at her and makes his last attempt to return to Pooja.

There are two most defining moment of this character. One is the scene where he confesses his illicit relationship with Kavita to his wife Pooja. During the scene you see his main concern is to prove that he is not the one who is wrong, he is the one who is stuck between two women. And second scene is one where he comes to meet Pooja at her hostel with divorce papers. Here also we see how hard Inder tries to tell Pooja that he is getting a divorce just for Kavita’s sake and no other reason.

And Shabana Azmi plays Pooja, a woman whose life is torn apart by her husband's affair. She tries to be strong but her emotions take over her every now and then during her journey from moving out of the safety of her breaking home to the world of independence outside it.
A character governed by realistic highs and lows. Often what happens is that at times directors make their female characters unrealistically strong and surrealistic.

Another good part of the film is its side characters, esp. the character played by Raj Kiran and by Rohini Hattangadi as the bai.
Raj plays a happy go lucky singer, who strives by just with a good voice and luck. It is he who helps Pooja in her journey; he becomes his friend and confidante in d outside world. He is a silent admirer, who loves Pooja even after she has dismissed him after he openly declares his feelings for her.

Another important side character in the film is that of the Bai. She is one who represents a story like Pooja's only but within a different class structure. She is someone who too faces troubles in her life mainly due to her drunkered and unfaithful husband. She is a strong woman, even being from a very low background, she is quite independent and her only aim is that her daughter sud receive a good education and a claim to a better future than her own. 

I think it is when the bai kills her husband is in fact quite a moving scene. When she sees her husband threatening her daughters future she retaliates by killing him. I think it is the jolt of physical killing of one unfaithful threatening husband that leads to Pooja's actually freedom in mind.

Music is a wonderful and very expressive part of the film. Every song represents the state of mind of characters present in it. Every song has an identity of its own. It is as of if the words fail to express what the characters are going thru that is where the songs come in. All 3 beautiful songs in d film have been picturized on Raj and have been sung by Jagjit Singh. Jagjit Singh's voice is so encapsulation and engrossing that it just reaches your heart and strike a chord with emotions directly.
Jagjit Singh, even despite attaining a status of being a gazhal exponent, never attained any significant mark in the mainstream bollywood industry.

This is undoubtedly one of the finest performances ever by Shabana Azmi. She perfects the character of Pooja with her marvelous acting. No doubt that she won many accolades for her performance in Arth, and her second Nation Award for the same.

Also I feel Smita Patil played the character of Kavita, the ‘other woman’, really well. She understood and embodied all the complexities of the character perfectly in her portrayal. Her performance moves you with so many emotions at the same time. You want to dislike her as a home wreaker, but you also sympathize with her to be a passionate woman in love who is suffering from schizophrenia.

Arth is a story about a woman's journey to independence and freedom. Freedom of mind and soul. And as the last words of the film point out 'palat ke matt dekho pooja. Palat ke matt dekho. Jao'. It is about a journey forward into a new beginning for the character.

Arth (1982)

Director: Mahesh Bhatt

Starring: Shabana Azmi, Samita Patil, Kulbhushan Kharbanda, Raj Kiran, Rohini Hattangadi

Producer: Kuljit Pal

Music by: Jagjit Singh, Chitra Singh

Cinematography: Pravin Bhatt

 Favorite Songs: Koi yeh kaise bataaye...., Tum itna jo muskura rahe ho...., Jhuki-jhuki si nazar.....

Mahesh Bhatt's 'Daddy' (1989)- A heart warming film

Last night I was watching Mahesh Bhatt’s 'Daddy' and I realized why it is considered to be such an important film in career of those involved in it; esp. Director Mahesh Bhatt, actor Pooja Bhatt and Anupam Kher.

It’s quite a touching and moving film. I have always had a special liking for stories that have interesting narrative. I'm a fan of movement between past and present. That movement keeps the story interesting and narrative more intriguing for me.

The story is about an estranged father and daughter and their journey to get to know each other, to reconcile the differences between them. It is a story of a daughter who longs to get to know her father and to bring him out of his ghosts of past and alcoholism. It is her way to bring her father back into the society out of the shield of obscurity that he has formed around him.

The most important part in the film is played by music. Music as a plot and well Music as in the background score and the songs. Music becomes a bonding factor of relations in the film, and also something that brings out acute emotions in the characters. Music not only builds in the pathos of the characters in the film, but is also a very much part of it.

I also love the music of the film. The songs are beautiful and so full of emotions. And that is how it should be for a film that has music at its center. I esp. Love the last song of the film 'Aina phir se mujhse woh pheli si soorat mange....' It’s such a beautiful song. Also the song ‘Kabhi khwaab mein kabhi khayal mein….’

The songs are well placed and add a lot to the narrative structure of the film on the whole.

The acting is superb. Not only the main characters but even the side cast seems so well casted in their respective roles. No character or actors seems to be wasted in the film. Daddy is Pooja Bhatt’s first film as an actor, and her performance in the film shows how much of an evolved actor she was since the beginning. I particularly love Anupam Kher’s performance as a drunk father, who is trapped in his past but has a longing of getting over his addictions and getting to know his daughter. No doubt in his winning the Filmfare Critics Award for Best Performance in 1991. I would like to make special mention to Manohar Singh, in the role of the protective grandfather who doesn't wishes his granddaughter to be hurt by the hands of the man who took his daughter away from him.

At times when words become scarce in appreciating something really good, I believe I should best leave it to emotions. And trust me watch the film and it will certainly not only engross you but will move you to emotions of sympathy and empathy at the pathos of its characters.

The movie is a typical Mahesh Bhatt style, which involves deep psychological pathos of it’s characters with real emotions, and camera angles and shots that don’t make anything ‘larger-than-life’ or grand or unreal. It all appears real and arises out of real human emotions that is why the magic of Mahesh Bhatt films has always worked; wether it is Arth, Saraansh, Sadak, etc.

It is actually true that real human emotions are presented in these films, as Mahesh Bhatt has himself claimed that Arth, Zakhm and Daddy were inspired by embarrassing personal experiences.

"What people are ashamed of usually makes a good story… I was ashamed of cheating on my wife, of being a child born out of wedlock, of being an alcoholic. These emotions created Arth, Zakhm and Daddy," the filmmaker had posted on Twitter in 2010.

Just one thing I was initially confused about is the year of release of the film. Going by Wiki and IMDB which state it as 1898, while many online sources state it as 1991. So that's one confusion I faced. No problem..it is actually 1989.

I guess I'm seeing this film again after ages. Approx I guess 7-8 years. Seeing it again after so long makes it so fresh for me.
My mom often hates my habit of watching films on TV late in night. But well she is sitting next to me and watching this film and engrossed as well, is what I believe a good enough achievement for the film. Sorry won't divulge into details of this as no one would understand the understanding me and my mom share on such things. It’s just a mom-daughter bond thing.

Daddy (1989)

Dir: Mahesh Bhatt

Starring: Anupam Kher, Pooja Bhatt, Manohar Singh, Soni Razdan,  Nath Zutshi, Avtar Gill, Satish Kaushik, Suhas Joshi, Sulbha Arya, Pramod Moutho, Himanshu, Neena Gupta, Akash Khurana, Sakshi Bhatt, Shaheen Bhatt.

Producer: Mukesh Bhatt

Writer: Suraj Sanim

Music by Rajesh Roshan

Playback Singers: Talat Aziz, Arun Ingle, Dilraj Kaur, Suresh Wadkar

Favorite songs: Kabhi khawab mein....; Aina mujhse mere....