Filmindia (1941)

FILMINDI A February 1941 painting the lily. He is the greatest director India has and threatens to monopolise that exclusive position for a long time to come. Photography is vivid and breathes life into the scenes. The sound is superb. The music is excellent. The dances are spectacular and novel. The Hindi dialogues of Pandit Sudarshan are however too poor in comparison with the Maratlii dialogues of Bedekar. The Marathi dialogues have for the first time become beautifully effective and purposeful. Vishram Bedekar, the story writer, takes our salute for giving a screen play that compels the audience to play their part in the drama unfolded before them. Bedekar certainly strikes us as one of the best screen witers we liave in the country and perhaps the best in the v/orld of Mnharashtrian writers. And one wonders where tliis jewel was hidden so long. THE PERFORMANCES Jagirdar — Gajanan Jagirdar to pin him to a point — is just great in the role of Mirza. The way he has played it, perhaps no one else could "I avi now on the thrvne of justice with God as my witness,^' says Mirza (.Jagirdar), "and none in the world belongs to me." have done better. Is greater praise necessary? Jayshree, the glamour girl of 1941, threatens to become the sweet sigh of millions. Like a well tempered blade of steel Jayshree flashes fast and true, dazzling every one with her just budding sex and leaving behind an undefinablii ache that urges to see more and even move of her. She Is a star to-day but none can say to what lieig'i*;s she \\-ill reac!i tomorrow. Between Mazhar Thakur in the Hindi version and Date as Jiwbg in the Marathi one a better histrionic performance — only a shade better — was given by Date but in diction and dialogues Mazhar has left Date far far behind. Date seem;; to be having a very unsympathetic voice for the microphone. Speaking of Mazhar alone, he has never before worked better in his entire screen career. Between Chandrakant as Raiba m the Marathi version and Balwant Singh as Gokul in the Hindi one, Chandrakant gave a more favourable impression. In comparison with him Balwant Singh looked too poor. Balwant Singh's dance, however, had more rhythm. In fine, "Padosi" is a picture which can well be considered as a work of a life-ti'.r.e and even if Shantaram had produced only this one picture, he would still remain a great director of all times. (Con. from page 5) story to be considered under the surface of an everj'day occm-rence. THE SCOPE IN INDIA This is the job of documentary in India. To show India as it is today. The world knows little of the real India. The film has mostly shown an India of Romance — an India of Maharajas and elephants and magnificence — of lovely palaces shining across still waters and of ancient temples sleeping in the sun. Begging for a stardom'. Poor Motilal! He has to do that in "Pardesi" a Ranjit picture. Now is the turn of everyday India to take her place on the screen. With such a wealth of material to offer, India presents a problem to the film maker, a problem of selection from such riches. Shall we make a film of the fishermen of Madras or the factory worker of Bengal? Of the agriculturist of Bombay or of a villager of the Punjab? Shall we tell the world about the Nagas of Assam or of the cotton workers of Cawnpore? There are many stories to be told about peoples' jobs in India. The work of an Indian district officer or of a Hooghli pilot might provide us with an absorbing story. There are a thousand stories of Indian life to be told on the screen, and if these stories are told well and honestly, the 'propaganda' work will be carried out, because the best sort vf propaganda one can do is to tell people the truth and let them make up their minds themselves. Printed by Gamer Saleh at the New Jack Printing Works, 75, Apollo Street, Fort, and published by him for "filmindia" Publications Ltd., from 104, ApoUo Street, Fort, Bombay.