User Reviews

I don't usually review movies, but seeing the high rating in the IMDb today, I cannot but express my views here. The movie is not exactly about the 1947 partition as it is currently described in IMDb. It is rather about the consequences of partition that is being felt even today. Muntasir Chowdhury Badal, the protagonist of the film, is a village schoolteacher living in Bangladesh near the Indo- Bangladesh border. When his daughter falls ill, the nearest good hospital happens to be located on the other side of river Ichhamati, i.e., in India. In spite of being an honest person, he is forced by his circumstances to resort to illegal means in order to enter the neighbouring country which could have been his own country if the partition had not taken place - the country where people speak the same language, sing the same songs.

The story is no doubt a relevant one, and the film tries to show the absurdity of partition and the suffering of common people because of that. But... it does not have the impact that it should have had. From the very beginning to the end, the film tries to hammer into spectators the issues related to partition, religious and national identity, artificial restrictions created by humans, loss, etc., but the representation does not look natural and ends up sounding forced and clichéd. This is not only true for the dialogues, but also for the songs. Why can't a film say something more subtly?

Have we learnt anything new, got any new perspective, heard anything that we hadn't heard before? I don't think so. It is not that a film has to always say something new, but it can still be a good film if executed well. Sadly, that is not the case here, as the film not only lacks depth but also drama and emotion. It is interesting to note that the film has been dedicated to Ritwik Ghatak but the emotion that Ghatak's "Komal Gandhar" ("E-Flat") could create in a brief scene (also shot on the bank of Ichhamati), could not be created by this film in spite of its repetitively bringing in various partition issues throughout its two hours and fifteen minutes of duration, and using a child as an emotional bait (by the way, hasn't it become outdated to portray a 11-12 year-old girl as pure and angelic? a metaphor of something beautiful?). The tension (surrounding the girl's illness, the fear of being caught by the Indian police, etc., etc.) has not been properly built up either. There is nothing that really jerked me, even the ending, because by the time the film ended I had stopped believing in the story.

The film was made in 4K resolution, which can be better experienced in the theatres equipped with 4K projection. The effect is visible on the visual quality of this film. Some images are amazing, especially the ones shot in Bangladesh. I will also remember the shot of crows cawing around a dead tree with a high-rise in the background. But can only cinematography make a film good? Is it enough just to make technological progress if there is no novelty of form, content and approach?