Bombay (1995)

बम्बई

There is something about sectarian violence that pushes all my buttons.  I am not Indian, and I am neither Hindu nor Muslim, but for some reason stories of communities torn apart along that particular axis simply breaks my heart.  By the end of Mani Ratnam's Bombay I was in tears - not merely weeping, but crying huge, hot, racking sobs.   I haven't bawled like that at the end of a film since 1947: Earth.  As I said, there's something about sectarian violence.  Bombay is very different from Earth in most ways - it's lot more hopeful, for one - but it's also less remote, covering events in recent memory.  And like Earth, its characters are so lovable that their anguish sears that much more. 

Shekhar (Arvind Swamy) has finished school and returns to his village to tell his family of his plans to take a job at a newspaper in Bombay and attend night classes in journalism.  Before he returns to the city, Shekhar catches a glimpse of a young burqa-clad Muslim woman, Shaila Banu (Manisha Koirala) when her veil flutters off her face in a seaside breeze.  Shekhar is instantly captivated; he sees her again at a village wedding and then contrives to meet her, learning that she returns his interest.  Rebuffed by their furious fathers - his a respected orthodox Hindu pandit, hers a devout Muslim brick-maker - the couple elope to Bombay and marry in a civil ceremony at a municipal office.  Disowned by their parents, they build life of modest contentment and are blessed with twin sons.  Then internecine tensions spark the Bombay riots of winter 1992-1993 - Hindus and Muslims tear after one another with Molotov cocktails and machetes, upending Shekhar and Shaila Banu's peaceful little world.

Bombay is more a series of beautiful moments than a story.  Some of these moments are warm and sweet, others harrowing, others unbearably sad.  But they encapsulate the full range of the human experience, from exuberant joy to unbridled anguish.  They also demonstrate the depth of tenderness that can exist within a family and that can develop even to bridge the widest gulf.  The film offers these elements in a measured and balanced mixture, gently retreating just when the pain seems too much to bear.  So, for example, as the sectarian hatred tears violently through the streets of the city, it is held in counterpoint by good-natured and humorous sparring between Shekhar's father and Shaila Banu's.  And when the destruction of the riots reaches its apex,  Shekhar's father risks his life to save the other man's Koran. 

The first time I watched Bombay I felt it was perfect, an engaging story told beautifully with a solid-to-outstanding soundtrack by A.R. Rahman and stunning performances by its principals.  Arvind Swamy brings an everyman sensibility to his role; pudgy and relatively ordinary-looking, he is nevertheless completely appealing, and his face registers every emotion perfectly.  And Manisha Koirala is not only gorgeous; she is one of the most skilled and expressive actors I've seen.  The film seemed utterly flawless.

On second viewing (the very next day) I had to acknowledge its imperfections.  Like many a filmi romance, Shekhar's and Shaila Banu's is based on little more than a glance and developed, in shorthand, in a song.  And the film offers their mixed-religion household as an idyllic haven, free from the tensions that plague the rest of the city - absent is any sign that compromise or adjustment is necessary to make a marriage work between two people raised so differently.  Shaila Banu declares dreamily that Allah gave her children "two gods," but in real life one would expect some conflict between the life cycle rites and customs of the two religions.  Bombay sweeps these details under the rug, establishing instead a simple dichotomy where home is pluralistic and safe while the outside world is full of hate and venom.

But on first viewing, critiques like these were beside the point; the movie just enthralled with its beautiful and symbolic moments, carefully crafted and perfectly rendered - like the moment in the gorgeous song "Tu hi re" where Shaila Banu's cloak, the last remnant of her burqa, catches on an anchor as she runs along the shore, and she must shed it to make her first secret meeting with Shekhar.  Or the heartbreaking and terrifying moment when one of Shekhar and Shaila Banu's twin boys, riding on the shoulders of his Hindu grandfather, furiously wipes the tilak from the old man's forehead when the pair are confronted by a group of Muslim rioters.  At its best, Bombay is a gripping succession of breath-stopping moments like these, and a simply unforgettable film. 

(A note on language:  Bombay was originally shot in Tamil and dubbed into Telugu and Hindi - the latter being the version that I saw - which is why I've included it in the "regional" category.  I suspect it would have been even better in Tamil.)

Comments

[v9y]

अच्छी, संतुलित समीक्षा. बॉम्बे अपनी ख़ामियों को अपनी ठंढक पहुँचाने वाली सिनेमैटोग्राफ़ी, गानों के पिक्चराइजेशन, और बेहतरीन पार्श्वसंगीत से ढँक लेती है.

जहाँ तक मुझे याद है, फ़िल्म पूरी तरह तमिल में नहीं बनी थी. कुछ कलाकारों (मनीषा समेत) ने अपने संवाद हिंदी में बोले थे जिन्हें बाक़ी संस्करणों के लिए उन भाषाओं में डब किया गया था.

[yves]

Carla,
What did you think of the last picture of the film, that ring of hands? Was that manipulation for you?

[Gulbahaar]

Mani Ratnam is a master of those little moments, isn't he?

[Meera]

Carla

Bombay was indeed originally made completely in tamil. The other versions are all dubbed.

The original tamil version is very interesting indeed. The songs are also much more enjoyable ie original tamil words.

As for your point about adjustments and compromise necessary in a marriage between people brought up in different cultural set ups - focusing on this would mean the director digressing from the main theme of sectarian violence. I guess in a movie of about 2.5 hrs including songs one can only focus only on some main strands rather than go the whole way.

Meera

[carla]

v9y - Thanks. I think most films' flaws are exposed on repeat viewing - flaws that are covered up, as you say, by beautiful visuals and music. In the case of *Bombay*, the emotional content touched me so effectively that my critical faculties were pretty much short-circuited on first viewing.

Yves - I don't know; as I said, critical faculties weren't working all that well. But I don't think manipulation is necessarily a bad thing - all good art, and especially effective cinema, has to manipulate its audience to make sure the audience is feeling certain things at certain times; else the emotional punch would fail.

Gulbahaar - I agree that the small moment is something Mani Ratnam excels at; unfortunately, in the films I've seen he usually tries to do too much with the big picture and ends up with a confused and muddy product. (See my *Yuva* review - by far the worst of his films I've seen - for more on that.) In *Bombay* he arguably also tries to do too much but he gets away with it, for me, because the emotional hook is just so damn powerful.

Meera: Of course the film can't do everything - if it did I'd be complaining, as I just said, that it tries to do too much. But the "main theme of sectarian violence" doesn't even come up until the film's last third. All I'm saying is that it could have taken twenty more minutes - even ten - to show us a little more of the couple's domestic adjustments. And at any rate, as I said it was a minor critique of a film I absolutely loved.

[Maajhi]

The movie was good, even though it fell into the standard trap of "happily ever after" that Yves is alluding to. Convinced as I am by history that Islam wherever it prevails, leads to societies that celebrate violence and cruelty (Saudi Arabia, the native speaker of the revealed tongue being a case in point), I feel India could have escaped all it has suffered for ages at the hands of Muslims if it had had a clean partition. Since that didn't happen, mostly thanks for Mr.Gandhi, India will continue to be convulsed by riots, bombings and violence.. should we weep? For a lost cause, it's probably worthless, sigh.

[Akshay Shah]

Wonderful Review here Filmigeek!!! Though not a patch on Rathnam's finest(MOUNA RAAGAM, IRUVAR, NAYAKAN) this is no doubt a fabulous film. Rathnam's presentation (or rather straight forward take) is questioniable at times, though one cannot question whether his heart is in the right place or not. But glad you enjoyed it...Rathnam is a genius! The highlight for me would have to be Rehman's touching TU HI RE!!!!!

[Sanket]

I really enjoyed this movie as well and even though I grew up here in the US & my mother had not even been born when Partition happened - it has been an obsession of mine for many years now. I am a Hindu but my closest friends include Muslims from both India & Pakistan. I for one think that India (with her vast natural resources & industrious people) could have been another Japan. But due to the disastrous results of Partition and it's lingering aftermath - the communal violence will keep the country from ever achieving it's full potential. Pakistan & Bangladesh still go through their own communal violence and arguably are worse off than when they were all part of united India.

There are no easy solutions but this whole subject is one that is very near & dear to my heart. I highly recommend the book 'Freedom at Midnight' (out of print but easily available online) for any persons of South Asian heritage or just simply anyone interested in the fascinating yet heartbreaking story of how Partition came to be.

[Amit]

I never quite got into this movie, as I found the perfect marriage of a Hindu and a Muslim without any conflicts whatsoever, or any attempts at adjustments in their daily lives totally unbelievable and divorced from reality. If both of them were presented as people who weren't religious at all to start with, it would have been fine. A little too sentimental and forced "messagy" for my tastes.

[Maajhi]

Sanket, India's trajectory compared to Japan's has much much more to do with the development model adopted, US financial and social involvement in Japan's rebuilding, and India's general fear of foreign trade after the British experience. Partition was irrelevant in this regard, at least in most of India. I have no hope for India either given than no country that Islam has laid its eyes on can ever hope to rest in peace until all its inhabitants are converted. The term "bloody borders of Islam" illustrate the global political situations perfectly, whether it's Chechnya, India, Thailand, Bosnia, Sudan, what-have-you. One side is, you guessed it, Muslim bent upon spreading Islam by the sword. I don't think all Muslims are like this of course, but the net effect of Muslim presence in your country does end up in this. I see India bloodied by conflicts, non-Muslims persecuted or driven out (Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kashmir are just the beginning) for time to come immemorial.. It's sad, but mark my words, it's true.

[Maajhi]

BTW, sorry I know my political views are considered controversial (even though they're very logically derived) and I don't want to spoil poor Carla's blog with them since they're irrelevant here. But this review just caused me to bring them up here. I will shut up now :).

[carla]

Maajhi, I want to thank you for that last sentence, because I've been trying to think of a nice way to ask everyone to please leave this topic behind.

There are many, many forums in which the issues you've raised have been debated; I have no interest in having this be one of them. As much as I value the thoughtful comments that everyone leaves here, I just don't have the ability or the inclination to moderate talk on controversial and emotional topics.

I realize it's hard to write about films like *Bombay* without raising difficult issues. But I'm just not prepared to host this particular debate.

[Lalita]

When I think Roja and Bombay, I think Mani's kaleidoscopic take on movie-making. His movies are nothing, if not immensely panoramic. Not just in the visual sense, but in the sense of capturing just so many emotions. Photo-ops of life. Great review.