"Knock-knock"
"Anyone there?"
"You...you the multiplex cine-goer...yeah, yeah you - we've made this for you...a collage of the horrors that the interiors of the country suffers from...
"Worry not dearies, we've masked it with a dose of humor to make it palatable."
Yes, Welcome to Sajjanpur is here to educate us of the situation in rural India, with a slightly patronizing tone. And it does a good job of it too. The seriousness is toned down with wit albeit slapsticky at a few places. It tries to sensitize without being overtly sensitive. Which is why villagers might find their issues being trivialized. Issues that they have to grapple with in on a day-to-day basis. Without any qualms, the movie refuses to offer solutions. "That's not our job", it says. We have just taken it upon ourselves to let you know this is what's happening in there.
Look here, a mere signature is literacy in the census, animal rights are taking precedence over human livelihood, "widow remarriage" is a privilege. Sure, you knew that superstition and blind faith seep through the country's veins, that 'politician' is synonymous with 'goon' and farmers sell organs to keep afloat. But, might as well reinforce their existence. Oh, by the way, while we are at it, let us remind you that there is no need to shake off a eunuch with disgust! You know what, though, all these things don't necessarily have to end badly, there are alternative outcomes.
That's a whole lot of ground to cover. Using one or two colorful, relatively well-etched out characters each, Benegal highlights issue after issue to form the montage of a village, Sajjanpur. The narrative tone topped up with a border-line loud Shreyas Talpade started getting to me in the first 10 minutes. And throughout, I was wondering, "why this tone?" Why are characters disappearing? My suggestion, don't be fidgety like me, there's a reason for that and you'll know when you need to know.
Similarly, the songs add to the unrealistic feel. Besides doing their bit to maintain the light tone of the film, they are the way they are for a reason. I'd just enjoy the rhythm that adds to the mood of the village - this group of people who don't lose their smile despite the trying circumstances.
Flipside, of course, is that they add to the length of the movie. And that's one place where Welcome to Sajjanpur misses the mark big time. It needed to be at least 15-20 minutes shorter. And this is despite the climax being rushed up. Maybe they were just trying something different in the narrative style, but it felt like a quick fix.
The other thing was the accent. For some reason, it came across as forced. One reason could be that Rajeshwari Sachdev and Amrita Rao have a city-bred image that is difficult to shake off. Add to that the fact that they show up in non-village-like attire every once in a while. While Amrita was charming as the wife pining for her husband to come back to her, Rajeshwari looked really uncomfortable in the whole set-up.
Smart-alec with a heart, Mahadev (Shreyas Talpade), keeps you curious throughout. How is he going to put his emotions in the next letter he writes for one of the villagers? You want his dreams to come true, however murky the morals behind them be. Am I the only one who thinks Shreyas does an Amol Palekar every once in a while? Each of the other cast members too adds his/her flavor to the village ambience. But, one who stood out was Ila Arun. I can so imagine her as one of my aunts from my native village.
You read the newspaper and go on with your day. You'll, in all probability, watch this movie, maybe applaud the effort, and go on with your life. There will be no long-lasting impact, but maybe, just maybe the stories will stay with you.
- meetu, a part of the audience
Comments (24)
Hey, read your review and your review seems to be predominantly negative, but still you have given the film a good rating overall.
I found the film tedious, a cross between a DD social serial and a Films Division documentary.
So yes, Mr. Benegal is a known nationalist at least from his filmography and here is yet another attempt to make a rural film which would appeal to the multiplex audience.
But does it work?
What you get is a squeaky clean village, ostensibly Ramoji Rao film city, which exists in never never land, and is not real. And the characters are stereotypes, the goon turned politician, the letter writer with a heart of gold, the romantic compounder, the feisty independent girl who wants to work, and the wife in waiting for her absent husband. That is it, one line summarizes the characters in the script. What else is there about them; in a village for eg there would be caste as the most important factor. What makes them what they are, we come to know nothing. They are props that is it for the story to move, and what is the story, a romance that is fated to remain half baked?
The only "real" character is that of the transgender Munnibhai, but even there we see just a very limited side of her. Nothing else is explored.
The director has thrown in everything from power cuts to sms's and the scenes seem to be written for the lines and the message rather than the other way around which results in a script which just plods around, with a few songs thrown in for good measure!
Yes, the film does have its moments, the dialogues are for the most crisp, and Amrita Rao has done a good job and so has the actor playing the Transgender(Ravi Jhankal I think). Shreyas Talpade needs to move away from the cute, chocolate, ever smiling boy roles and do something serious for a change, his sweet boy acting gets terribly irritating.
The best of Benegal's films have been intense / satirical. This film has neither the intensity nor the satirical punch.
I mean if you want to laud it just because it has a rural theme, go ahead, but otherwise it disappoints.
And yes, I completely forgot, the film harps so much on democracy, ha ha through another stereotype, the army subedar! We even have one song thrown in for that!
I liked Munnibhai's song the best.
http://chavannichap.blogspot.com/2008/09/blog-post_368.html
That is your best review ever meetu
I really liked that gag on the sms forwarding
superstition.
I really liked the movie.
I watched this movie Sunday late night with my parents.
I noticed that the film was still titled Mahadev ka Sajjanpur in the Censor certificate
I told my mum that the movie's old name
"Mahadev ka Sajjanpur"
or was it
"Sajjanpur ka Mahadev"
I thought that if it was about Mahadev , than it should be "Sajjanpur ka Mahadev", but I was so sure it was "Mahadev ka Sajjanpur"
After the movie
when I was changing into my nightclothes at my home,
it struck me.
Shyam Benegal, YOU ARE A GENIUS!!!!
I really think he purposely publicized the movie in its old name for some time.
Very Well written film ..only for mature people who want entertainment with logic..Very Nice film 5 star rating .doesnt deserve Indian Audience. Most of them will like to have fun. but it shows the roots of our culture where we come from and if we do want a change in our systems ..then where to start from . Also highlights the Power of the PEN. as it can change anybody's life.
This is a film about a writer, his limtations and how he can bring a good or bad change within a society.
@ Cinefreak, I try my best not to be inconsistent. I'm sorry, if I sound that way. I certainly liked the movie, and like always, despite its faults.
The village is squeaky clean, because it is Mahadev's idolized view of his village.
The letter-writer is not with a heart of gold. He is manipulating the life of the woman he loves to the best possible manner. He does things out of fear, he lies.
A romance that is half-broken, is that not real? Would have liked a hunky-dory happy ending?
"the scenes seem to be written for the lines and the message rather than the other way around"
Yeah because it is a novel written by a person from a village who doesn't have training in novel-writing. He's just writing where his emotions lie.
I'm not lauding it because it has a rural theme. The satire worked for me, especially because it wasn't preachy.
Every time democracy is mentioned it is very sarcastic.
@ Arpit, thanks! And yeah, for me one of the main reasons the movie worked is because of the concept in the climax. It was rushed, but it makes you rethink about what was fictional and what was reality in the last 2 hours.
@Paras, glad you enjoyed it!
OK folks; This is the first I read a detailed review before watching a movie. Now that I had already bought tickets for this Sunday (befor reading the review); you will find me come back and add my notes ; see you in <100 hrs.
cool Vivek, so what was your take?
What an useless review. This article don't even say properly what the story is before giving your opiniom.
Hi Meetu, Sprry could not update sooner; though I have taken some notes on the day.
PS: Ramkumar - if the review was to write the complete story; then what is the use of seeing ANY movie;
Anyways, coming back to my views on the movie; slick direction; editing could have been better on some counts (especially Mahadev's interaction with a couple of characters; I feel the end was also suddenly rushed; compared to the comfortable pace of the rest of the movie.
Rajeshwari just does not fit the bill (and infact neither does Ila Arun); It may have been better to swap Rajeshwari and Divya's roles.
I quite liked the clever use of songs in the film (except maybe the initial one - Sitaram); and the deliberate narration style to keep the interest level.
Overall quite good as expected. Thanks for this Movie Shyam; and Thanks meetu for the useful insights.
Thanks, vivek!
And Ramkumar...what can I say man...I just don't like writing about the story!
Hey, read your review and your review seems to be predominantly negative, but still you have given the film a good rating overall. I found the film tedious, a cross between a DD social serial and a Films Division documentary. So yes, Mr. Benegal is a known nationalist at least from his filmography and here is yet another attempt to make a rural film which would appeal to the multiplex audience. But does it work? What you get is a squeaky clean village, ostensibly Ramoji Rao film city, which exists in never never land, and is not real. And the characters are stereotypes, the goon turned politician, the letter writer with a heart of gold, the romantic compounder, the feisty independent girl who wants to work, and the wife in waiting for her absent husband. That is it, one line summarizes the characters in the script. What else is there about them; in a village for eg there would be caste as the most important factor. What makes them what they are, we come to know nothing. They are props that is it for the story to move, and what is the story, a romance that is fated to remain half baked? The only “real” character is that of the transgender Munnibhai, but even there we see just a very limited side of her. Nothing else is explored. The director has thrown in everything from power cuts to sms’s and the scenes seem to be written for the lines and the message rather than the other way around which results in a script which just plods around, with a few songs thrown in for good measure! Yes, the film does have its moments, the dialogues are for the most crisp, and Amrita Rao has done a good job and so has the actor playing the Transgender(Ravi Jhankal I think). Shreyas Talpade needs to move away from the cute, chocolate, ever smiling boy roles and do something serious for a change, his sweet boy acting gets terribly irritating. The best of Benegal’s films have been intense / satirical. This film has neither the intensity nor the satirical punch. I mean if you want to laud it just because it has a rural theme, go ahead, but otherwise it disappoints.
And yes, I completely forgot, the film harps so much on democracy, ha ha through another stereotype, the army subedar! We even have one song thrown in for that! I liked Munnibhai’s song the best.
That is your best review ever meetu I really liked that gag on the sms forwarding superstition.
I really liked the movie. I watched this movie Sunday late night with my parents. I noticed that the film was still titled Mahadev ka Sajjanpur in the Censor certificate I told my mum that the movie’s old name “Mahadev ka Sajjanpur” or was it “Sajjanpur ka Mahadev” I thought that if it was about Mahadev , than it should be “Sajjanpur ka Mahadev”, but I was so sure it was “Mahadev ka Sajjanpur” After the movie when I was changing into my nightclothes at my home, it struck me. Shyam Benegal, YOU ARE A GENIUS!!!! I really think he purposely publicized the movie in its old name for some time.
Very Well written film ..only for mature people who want entertainment with logic..Very Nice film 5 star rating .doesnt deserve Indian Audience. Most of them will like to have fun. but it shows the roots of our culture where we come from and if we do want a change in our systems ..then where to start from . Also highlights the Power of the PEN. as it can change anybody’s life. This is a film about a writer, his limtations and how he can bring a good or bad change within a society.
@ Cinefreak, I try my best not to be inconsistent. I’m sorry, if I sound that way. I certainly liked the movie, and like always, despite its faults. The village is squeaky clean, because it is Mahadev’s idolized view of his village. The letter-writer is not with a heart of gold. He is manipulating the life of the woman he loves to the best possible manner. He does things out of fear, he lies. A romance that is half-broken, is that not real? Would have liked a hunky-dory happy ending? “the scenes seem to be written for the lines and the message rather than the other way around” Yeah because it is a novel written by a person from a village who doesn’t have training in novel-writing. He’s just writing where his emotions lie. I’m not lauding it because it has a rural theme. The satire worked for me, especially because it wasn’t preachy. Every time democracy is mentioned it is very sarcastic. @ Arpit, thanks! And yeah, for me one of the main reasons the movie worked is because of the concept in the climax. It was rushed, but it makes you rethink about what was fictional and what was reality in the last 2 hours. @Paras, glad you enjoyed it!
OK folks; This is the first I read a detailed review before watching a movie. Now that I had already bought tickets for this Sunday (befor reading the review); you will find me come back and add my notes ; see you in <100 hrs.
cool Vivek, so what was your take?
What an useless review. This article don’t even say properly what the story is before giving your opiniom.
Hi Meetu, Sprry could not update sooner; though I have taken some notes on the day. PS: Ramkumar - if the review was to write the complete story; then what is the use of seeing ANY movie; Anyways, coming back to my views on the movie; slick direction; editing could have been better on some counts (especially Mahadev’s interaction with a couple of characters; I feel the end was also suddenly rushed; compared to the comfortable pace of the rest of the movie. Rajeshwari just does not fit the bill (and infact neither does Ila Arun); It may have been better to swap Rajeshwari and Divya’s roles. I quite liked the clever use of songs in the film (except maybe the initial one - Sitaram); and the deliberate narration style to keep the interest level. Overall quite good as expected. Thanks for this Movie Shyam; and Thanks meetu for the useful insights.
Thanks, vivek! And Ramkumar…what can I say man…I just don’t like writing about the story!
Is this where Prasoon Joshi got the "idea" for his "democracy" ad campaign for IDEA ? What an idea sirjee :(
Leave a new comment