DoctorJones24

I finally got around to seeing this film the other day, and it was worth the wait. It tells the story of a small town on the border of India/Pakistan just as partition is ripping the cultures apart. Singh's novel of the same title came out in 1956, and was probably the first English language novel to deal with this traumatic historical event, which saw nearly 10 million people rendered homeless, and perhaps 1 million murdered, raped, and kidnapped. Rooks takes Singh's social realist narrative and faithfully transcribes it to the screen, with the allegory of India's tragic fate still bitterly intact. Hopefully, this film will gather a wider audience later in its life than it had upon release when it was all but ignored, in India and abroad. It has an important message to us all about the reality of cross-cultural harmony being destroyed by desperate and ignorant ideologues. Unfortunately, the current political climate in India and Pakistan seems largely uninterested in such a view right now.

As another user noted, this film has much in common with the much longer "Manufacturing Consent." Studs Terkel hosts this hour long documentary about how the US media's corporate backing effectively creates a culture of "self censorship." This is one of those films that should make you angry and motivated to do something. As Jefferson noted, a free press is imperative if democracy is to work.

I did not know anything about Subbayya Bharathi before seeing this, so it was enlightening to get a nice background on an important figure in Indian history. For one, it might help Western audiences get a more nuanced picture of the independence movement in India, as I think too often we think of it as a one man struggle (Gandhi).

As for artistic merit, this film certainly has some weaknesses. It doesn't particularly capture the period (turn of century). It also focuses almost entirely on Bharathi's family and personal problems, so if you are interested in his literary or political thought, this is actually not a very good source. I understand some Tamil critics were annoyed at this. Still, I think they did do a nice job of presenting the alienation of the social reformer in a culture still quite bound by notions of caste and gender roles. The relationship between Bharathi and his wife was particularly complex and compelling, I thought.

On a final note, the film is a bit overlong at 150 minutes. You are carried along for the most part, but the musical interludes (standard Indian fare) will probably seem silly and dragged out to western audiences.

Just watched Diner for the second time (first in many years) and again enjoyed it very much. The script and performances are very well done, and the piece has a truly lived in feel to it. What is most interesting, however, is how the movie prefigures so much of what passes now for originality in cinema. Consider the sandwich argument and then think of Jerry, George, and Kramer sitting in their own "diner." This movie is a kind of primer on contemporary "friendship" stories featuring ensemble casts. Think: "Beautiful Girls," "Friends," "The Big Chill," "Kicking and Screaming," "Metropolitan," to name just a few of the successes. In fact, I think it's possible that it's impact might be dating the film somewhat: let's face it, the diner dialogue schtick has been copied so many times now (with hugely mixed results) that I think newcomers to Levinson's original may not be as impressed/surprised. Hopefully, this isn't the case, as there are still some special moments here.

One other thought I had was that this may also be a fundamentally "guy" movie. It seems to focus very specifically on how young men often relate to each other and to problems associated with a particular time in life: call it the "rat pack" mentality. I'm not sure how many women will identify as readily with these relationships.

PS: The DVD has a neat "making of" documentary which gives some nice insight into how Levinson fostered a real sense of camraderie between his young actors, which definitely shows onscreen. Also definitely check out "Avalon," Levinson's more mature and sweeping portrayal of Baltimore, the immigrant experience, and the American Dream.

This is one of the few movies I have ever walked out of the theater from. I was sitting there thinking, why am I wasting this hour? There is absolutely no characterization to speak of, so you won't feel anything for any character enough to bother even seeing what happens. It simply can't matter. Thus I still have no idea how it ends, and I walked out of it over 10 years ago...