3 idiots

Farhan Qureshi (R. Madhavan), Raju Rastogi (Sharman Joshi), and Rancchoddas "Rancho" Shyamaldas Chanchad (Aamir
Khan) are three engineering students who share a room in a hostel at the Imperial College of Engineering, one of the best
colleges in India. While Farhan and Raju are average students from modest backgrounds, Rancho is from a rich family.
Farhan wants to become a wildlife photographer, but has joined engineering college to fulfil his father's wish. Raju on the
other hand wants to uplift his family fortunes. Rancho is a wealthy genius who studies for the sheer joy of it. However,
Rancho's passion is for knowledge and taking apart and building machines rather than the conventional obsession of the
other students with exam ranks. With his different approach Rancho incurs the wrath of dean of college, Professor Viru
Sahastrabudhhe (ViruS) (Boman Irani). Rancho irritates his lecturers by giving creative and unorthodox answers, and
confronts ViruS after fellow student Joy Lobo hangs himself in his dormitory room. Joy had requested an extension on his
major project on compassionate groundshis father had suffered a strokebut ViruS refused, saying that he himself was
completely unmoved by his own son's accidental death after being hit by a train. Rancho denounces the rat race, dog-eat-
dog, mindless rote learning mentality of the institution, blaming it for Lobo's death.

Threatened by Rancho's talent and free spirit, ViruS labels him an "idiot" and attempts on a number of occasions to destroy
his friendship with Farhan and Raju, warning them and their parents to steer clear of Rancho. In contrast, ViruS model
student is Chatur Ramalingam or "Silencer", (Omi Vaidya) who sees a high rank at the prestigious college as his ticket to
higher social status, corporate power, and therefore wealth. Chatur conforms to the expectations of the system. Rancho
humiliates Chatur, who is awarded the honour of making a speech at an award ceremony, by substituting obscenities into
the text, which has been written by the librarian. As expected, Chatur mindlessly memorises the speech, without noticing
that anything is amiss, partly aided by his lack of knowledge on Hindi. His speech becomes the laughing stock of the
audience, infuriating the authorities in the process.

Meanwhile, Rancho also falls in love with ViruS' medical student daughter Pia (Kareena Kapoor) when he, Raju and Farhan
crash her sister's wedding banquet in order to get a free meal, in the process further infuriating ViruS.

Meanwhile, the three students continue to anger ViruS, although Rancho continues to come first in every exam, while Chatur
is always second, and Farhan and Raju are inevitably in the last two positions. The tensions come to a head when the three
friends, who are already drunk, break into ViruS's house at night to allow Rancho to propose to Pia, and then urinate on a
door inside the compound before running away when ViruS senses intruders. The next day, ViruS threatens to expel Raju
lest he talks on the other two. Unable to choose between betraying his friend or letting down his family, Raju jumps out of the
3rd floor window and lands on a courtyard, but after extensive care from Pia and his roommates, awakes from a coma.

The experience has changed Farhan and Raju, and they adopt Rancho's outlook. Farhan decides to pursue his love of
photography, while Raju takes an unexpected approach for an interview for a corporate job. He attends in plaster and a
wheelchair and gives a series of non-conformal and frank answers. However, ViruS is unsympathetic and vows to make the
final exam as hard as possible so that Raju is unable to graduate. Pia hears him and angrily confronts him, and when ViruS
gives the same ruthless reply he gives to his students, she denounces him in the same way that Rancho did over the suicide
of Lobo. Pia reveals that Viru's son and her brother was not killed in an accident but committed suicide in front of a train and
left a letter because ViruS had forced him to pursue a career in engineering over his love for literature; ViruS always
mentioned that he unsympathetically failed his son on the ICE entrance exams over and over to every new intake of ICE
students. After this, Pia walks out on the family home, and takes ViruS's spare keys with her. She tells Rancho of the exam,
and he and Farhan break into ViruS's office and steals the exam and give it to Raju, who with his new-found attitude, is
unconcerned with the prospect of failing, and refuses to cheat and throws the paper away. However, ViruS catches the trio
and expels them on the spot. However, they earn a reprieve when Viru's pregnant elder daughter Mona (Mona Singh) goes
into labour at the same time. A heavy storm cuts all power and traffic, and Pia is still in self-imposed exile, so she instructs
Rancho to deliver the baby in the college common room via VOIP, after Rancho restores power using car batteries and a
power inverter that Rancho had dreamed up and ViruS had mocked. Rancho then delivers the baby with the help of a
cobbled-together Vacuum extractor.

After the baby is apparently stillborn, Rancho resuscitates it. ViruS reconciles with Rancho and his friends and allows them
to take their final exams and they graduate. Rancho comes first and is awarded ViruS's pen, which the professor had been
keeping for decades before finding a brilliant enough student to gift it to.

Their story is framed as intermittent flashbacks from the present day, ten years after Chatur vowed revenge on Rancho for
embarrassing him at the speech night and promised to become more successful than Rancho a decade later. Having lost
contact with Rancho, who disappeared during the graduation party and went into seclusion, Raju and Farhan begin a
journey to find him. They are joined by Chatur, now a wealthy and successful businessman, who joins them, brazenly
confident that he has surpassed Rancho. Chatur is also looking to seal a deal with a famous scientist and prospective
business associate named Phunsukh Wangdu. Chatur sees Wangdu, who has hundreds of patents, as his ticket to further
social prestige. When they find Rancho's house, they walk into his father's funeral, and find a completely different Rancho
Jaaved Jaffrey. After accusing the new man of stealing their friend's identity and profiting from his intellect, the host pulls a
gun on them, but Farhan and Raju turn the tables by seizing the father's ashes and threatening to flush them down the toilet.
The householder capitulates and says that their friend was a destitute servant boy who loved learning, while he, the real
Rancho, was a lazy wealthy child who disliked study, so the family agreed to let the servant boy study in Rancho's place
instead of labouring. In return, the real Rancho would pocket the qualifications and the benefits thereof, while the
impersonator would sever all contact with the world and start a new life. The real Rancho reveals that his impersonator is
now a schoolteacher in Ladakh.

Raju and Farhan then find Pia, and take her from her wedding day to Suhas by performing the same tricks with his material
possessions, and having Raju turn up to the ceremony disguised as the groom and eloping with Pia in public. When they
arrive in Ladakh, they see a group of enthusiastic Ladakhi children who are motivated by love of knowledge. Pia and the
fake Rancho rekindle their love, while Chatur mocks and abuses Rancho the schoolteacher before walking away. When his
friends ask what his real name is, he reveals that it Phunsukh Wangdu and phones Chatur, who has turned his back, to turn
around and meet his prospective business partner. Chatur is horrified and falls to his knees, accepts his defeat and
continues to plead his case with Phunsukh to establish the business relationship he was after.

Rang De Basanti

RANG DE BASANTI is a story about the youth of India today. A young, London based film- maker chances upon the diaries
of her grandfather, who served in the British police force in India during the freedom struggle. Excited about these memoirs,
she makes plans to shoot a film on the Indian revolutionaries mentioned in the diaries. She comes down to Delhi, and casts
a group of five friends to play the pivotal roles of these revolutionaries. However, products of modern India, the five
youngsters initially refuse to be part of the project, as they don't identify with these characters from the past. Not surprising,
considering that they're part of a generation of Indians that believes in consumerism. To them issues like patriotism and
giving one's life for one's beliefs is the stuff stuffy text- books are made of. They would rather party than be patriots. In the
film both the 1930's British India and the India Today run parallel and intersect with each other at crucial points. As the film
reaches its resolution the line between past and present blur's, as they become one in spirit.

Rang De Basanti (English title: Paint It Yellow; literally, Color It Saffron) was a
patriotism and social change-themed Bollywood film that was released in India, the
US and the UK (and other foreign markets on later dates) on January 26, 2006, Indias
Republic Day. It was a critical and commercial success, and won numerous awards,
including the Indian equivalent of the Oscars; in addition, it was nominated for Best
Film Not in the English Language by the British Academy of Film and Television Arts
(BAFTAs). It earned $8.8 million in foreign box office revenue (of which $2.2 million
came from the US), and an impressive $11 million in India[1]. Despite these numbers
and accolades, what Rang De Basanti might be remembered for the most is being
among the first Bollywood films to catalyze civic mobilization among urban Indian
youth in order to secure justice in a high-profile murder case.

RANG DE BASANTI - THE STORY

In Rang De Basanti (hereafter, RDB), a young British filmmaker visits India to make a
documentary about five freedom fighters,
after being inspired by the entries in the diary of her grandfather who was a jailer during
the Indian independence movement. She recruits five initially reluctant and happy-go-
lucky New Delhi college students to play the freedom fighters, and as they dig deeper
into their roles, their merriment gradually transforms into a respectful appreciation of
the lives sacrificed for independence,
but more importantly, into an awareness of and frustration with the apathy among
youth like themselves towards corrupt, inefficient and sometimes intolerant
government, and how very little had changed in the near seventy years since
independence.

When a close pilot friend dies flying a fighter plane known to be an older model
purchased by the Aviation Minister in a bribe deal (this story line was inspired by true
incidents), and when the Minister blames the crash on the pilots foolhardiness
instead of admitting the plane's condition or recognizing t
hat the pilot heroically sacrificed his life to prevent crashing into homes, the friends
decide to hold a candlelight rally at India Gate, a prominent national landmark and war
memorial. The final act of the movie shows the repercussions when that peaceful rally is
cruelly disrupted by the paid off police, and how in an act of fired ideology
and unbending will to rise against the system, the friends, uncaring for their lives, take
matters into their own hands. They hijack the headquarters of All India Radio to
broadcast the truth about t

heir pilot friend and the shocking political machinations foreshadowing the disaster.
The act costs them their lives, and yet the last scenes are poignant: not only do the
friends salute the freedom fighters of yesteryear by re-embodying the revolt, but
through their martyrdom strike a chord among youth across the country who come to
believe that they must become the conduit for deep, system-wide change.

In fact, right before the end credits roll,there is interesting documentary-style

reflexivity. The screenwriter imagines that the friends' sacrifice has in fact mobilized
India's youth to stop being complacent. Statements like the one to the left were
supposed to rouse audiences. And they did, in ways more than one. For now, we'll
focus on some of the main socio-civic influences of RDB.

RANG DE BASANTI - THE RESPONSE

Whats notable about RDB is how its striking, youth-oriented and unusually expensive
marketing campaign, in addition to its upbeat, catchy and rousing score, drove
audiences, especially young college students in major metropolitan markets like New
Delhi and Mumbai, to see the movie. Meghana Dilip describes this effect in the
historical context of Bollywood[2]:

While there is always the danger of popular cinema like RDB being labeled
escapist, mere entertainment, and fantasy-oriented, it is very essential to
understand the role it plays in motivating audiences to act in certain ways.
For despite all its inanities and irrelevancies this cinema is ideology-filled and
 its raw material is the society of today. RDB, by focusing on the concerns of
youngsters, operating from their perspective and speaking their language,
conveyed the mindset of urban and educated youngsters in post-independent
India. It therefore serves as a fertile ground to study issues of changing
culture, identities, media consumption and audience effects among
others. (p. 7)

Dilip conducted an 'audience analysis' (a type of content analysis) by studying blogs,

discussion boards and news reports. She reports that discussion of political issues /
events on Indian blogs

increased significantly for a short period following the January release of the film in the
Indian subcontinent. (p. 30) In fact, the frustrated and roused language in some of the
blogs (one such blog entry seen to the right) - It is an emergency wake up call for the
youth in India to take the cause of freedom seriously (p. 37); I remain optimistic that
some of this new found energy will be channeled towards nation building (p. 35); The
society will be ruined by these evil politicians. Its time to have a Rang De Basanti type
resurgence (p. 32) - reflected the documentary-style frustrations voiced by diverse
youth in the last scenes of the film. It almost seemed that in the weeks following its
release, a change was indeed in the air, and that many were unexpectedly moved by the
well-narrated, heart-wrenching story and ideology central to the film.

However, Dilip echoes many commentators in the press and media when she writes
that the biggest, direct and most prominent impact of RDB was on the Jessica Lall
and the Priyadarshini Mattoo murder cases, as RDB egged youngsters into highlighting
the judicial injustice meted out in the above cases (p. 39). Lets focus on the Jessica
Lall case and how RDB ultimately impacted it.

RANG DE BASANTI'S MAJOR SOCIO-CIVIC IMPACT: THE JESSICA LALL MURDER CASE

On April 29 1999, 34-year-old model Jessica Lall (left) was fatally shot inside a high-
profile New Delhi restaurant, packed with 300 of the citys glitterati. The gunman was
patron Manu Sharma (right), member of the citys elite brat pack, and son of an
influential politician[3]. As is common,
the case dragged on in Indian courts for several (seven in this case) years, over which
period many witnesses recanted and the murder weapon could not be found. Thus, on
February 21 2006 (four weeks after the release of RDB), the Delhi High Court (the
highest court after the Supreme Court) acquitted
Manu Sharma and his friends due to 'lack of evidence'.

This appalling verdict had phenomenal consequences. As Dilip writes, Manu Sharmas
acquittal saw the launch of one of Indias most rigorous public protests and media
campaigns all of which demanded that he be re-arrested (p. 39). A sample of
newspaper headlines in the following weeks - No one killed Jessica;
How Indias Rich Get Away With Murder - underlined the irony and increased the
furor. There were numerous street demonstrations, text message campaigns and email
petitions, some involving collaborations between youth and the media, some addressed
to the President of India and to prominent media channels. Dilip notes the role that
bloggers played in the process, if not in organizing protests then in galvanizing youths
attitudes and pushing them to participate in demonstrations and marches.

The civic engagement event that received the most media attention was a fascinating
case of life imitating art, and also the inspiration for this case study. Tehelka (itself an
Urdu word meaning a tumult provoked out of a daring act[4]), an Indian weekly
magazine famous for running exposes, claims to have sent an anonymous text
message: If the Jessica case has upset you, show you care.

There is a protest gathering at India Gate next Saturday, March 4 at 5.30pm. Be there.
Help keep up the pressure. Demand justice.[5] The question on the magazine boards
mind was whether Delhis infamously apathetic and insular middle class would take
its outrage on the street. And lo and behold, word spread. On March 4, about 2500
people, many of them young students, gathered spontaneously at India Gate. Jessica
Lalls sister (right; left side of the picture) addressed the gathering, and then the mike
was opened to the public. Tehelka reports:

The evening was... exhilarating... At one level, this was truly a spontaneous
act of citizenship from people not normally given to acts of citizenship. A
quiet rage surged through the crowd. One after the other, people of every
contour took the mike: Justice! everyone demanded. Reopen the
investigation. Hang Manu Sharma. Create a witness protection programme.
Make criminal trials time bound. Punish hostile witnesses. Shame on parents
who harbour brazen criminals.
Clean up the system. Clean up the system. Clean up the system. Poignantly, a young
man took the mike and said, Im ashamed to tell you today, Im a law student and in
just a few months I will be part of this system.

There was no mistaking the anger, the yearning for something purer, the
sarfaroshi ki tamanna. It was exhilarating to see the middle class break its
insular threshold. Yet a curious undercurrent of theatricality underran the
entire evening. Several people who took the mike that day referred to Rang
 De Basanti: at times it seemed more than the injustice itself, the film was
their inspiration. It had not just intuited a latent public mood; in a curious
twist, it had become the mood itself.[6]

It is clear from the above - and from a survey conducted by the influential Bombay
Times which revealed that 18 percent of people attributed the recent upsurge in
social movements to RDB - that RDB had become a force to reckon with and had had
a direct impact on civic engagement
Although, it is not clear whether Tehelka consciously chose India Gate as a rally venue
because of RDB. Even if they did, the point is that individual people spread the word,
and individuals made independent choices about wanting to participate.

Whats most heartening is that this event, along with the concomitant intense media
attention, scrutiny and reportage, resulted in the re-opening of the Jessica Lall
murder case. After that a series of events led to a stunning outcome in December
2006: Manu Sharma was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life
imprisonment.

RANG DE BASANTI & FLASH ACTIVISM

The RDB Syndrome, as it has sometimes been referred to[7], is a classic, moving
case of what I call flash activism. Flash Activism can be thought of as temporal,
temporary, social mobilization around a particular civic issue, mobilization that may
or may not have clear-cut goals and may or may not achieve these goals. What allows
for the mobilization are at least two factors: (i) an existing body or group of people
that are already sensitive to and roused about fostering civic responsibility and
maintaining a civic ethos, and (ii) external triggering and mobilizing factors, such as
media and culture, and cultural artifacts and products such as film, theater and
television. In particular, when cinematic artifacts mobilize flash activism, we may
refer to the process as flash fandom resulting in flash activism.

In the case of RDB, the films narrative, music, marketing, and underlying ideology
successfully pre-disposed its audiences into action. People became fans of the
movie, and their fandom would remain latent until an issue or external event
occurred that would bring out their fandom, their passion, their reasons for being
moved. A flash fandom, then, is a latent admiration of a cultural artifact that is
deep enough to transform a fandom's pathos into ethos, or in other words, one that
impacts central values driving peoples lives. A flash activism then is an external
event or issue that allows for the temporary, effective or otherwise, manifestation of
a flash fandom.

When Manu Sharma went scot-free, people were angry. However, their anger had a
channel to manifest itself with - in this case, I want to suggest that the imagery and
events of RDB allowed people to activate and act on their anger. People sculpted their
latent fandom into a real-world activist demonstration. I use the word flash to
emphasize the suddenness and the self-organization, as well as the suddenness of the
self-organization. Of course, both media and people worked together in the case of
RDB, but the media itself consisted of people who had been influenced by the film.
Joining hands, they successfully galvanized their latent inspiration and admiration
into a temporary socio-civic infrastructure that in their case was able to achieve its
goals. Whats important to note is that even after the flash passes away, the latent
affection and inspiration the pathos do not. Once one has worn the guise of
activist, it is difficult to shed, and it is equally difficult to forget the moments,
artifacts and influences that allowed us to dis-guise, or rather, reach out towards our
truer or at least fuller selves.

EPILOGUE - NO ONE KILLED JESSICA", THE MOVIE

Now, in a fascinating yet unsurprising case of art imitating 'life imitating art', Bollywood
has announced t
he production of a film entitled 'No One Killed Jessica' (named after the famous Times
of India headline pictured above) to bring awareness about the Jessica Lall case and its
after-effects. Its Wikipedia article says that it is inspired more by the headline and its
effects than actual facts about the murder case. It stars the famous actresses Vidya Balan
and Rani Mukherji (pictured to the right). Vidya Balan (left in the picture) will play
Jessica's sister, Sabrina Lall.

Pyaasa

1957 Indian film produced by, directed by, and starring Guru Dutt. The film tells the story of Vijay, a struggling
poet trying to make his works known in post-independence India, and Gulabo, a prostitute with a heart of
gold who eventually helps him get his poems published. The music was composed by S.D. Burman. Vijay
(Guru Dutt) is an unsuccessful poet whose works are not taken seriously by publishers or his brothers (who sell
his poems as waste paper). Unable to bear their taunting that he is a good-for-nothing, he stays away from
home and is often out on the streets. He encounters a good-hearted prostitute named Gulabo (Waheeda
Rehman), who is enamoured with his poetry and falls in love with him. He also encounters his ex-girlfriend
Meena (Mala Sinha) from college and finds out that she has married a big publisher Mr. Ghosh (Rehman) for
financial security. Ghosh hires him as a servant to find out more about him and Meena. A dead beggar to whom
Vijay gave his coat and whom he tries to save unsuccessfully from the path of a running train is mistaken for
Vijay. Gulabo goes to Ghosh and gets his poems published. Ghosh does so feeling he can exploit the poems
and make a killing. The poems are very successful. However, Vijay is alive and in the hospital after the train
mishap.

Ghosh and Shyam, Vijay's close friend, refuse to recognise him and he is committed to a mental asylum since
he insists he is Vijay and is thought to be mad. Vijay's brothers too are bought off by Ghosh not to recognise
him and a memorial is held for the dead poet. Vijay with the help of his friend Abdul Sattar (Johnny Walker)
escapes from the mental asylum and reaches the memorial service where he denounces this corrupt and
materialistic world. Seeing that Vijay is alive his friend and brothers take side with a rival publisher for more
money and declare this is Vijay. At a function to honour him, Vijay becomes sick of all the hypocrisy in the world
around him and declares he is not Vijay. He then leaves with Gulabo to start a new life.

Dinesh Raheja

With Pyaasa, Guru Dutt bade goodbye to the thrillers (Baazi, Jaal, Aar Paar) and comedies (Mr & Mrs 55)
he had directed so far and let a dark cloud of pessimism hover over his professional, even personal, life.
Pyaasa opens with a jobless poet Vijay (Guru Dutt) lying in the lap of Nature, which accepts
him, unquestioning and non-judgemental.

The world he lives in, we soon see, is very different. Vijay is a talented writer, but the world has yet to
wake up to his stark, stirring poetry. He is treated with contempt by publishers. His mercenary
brothers evict him from his house when he chides them for selling off his nazms (poems) to
a raddiwala (junk and wastepaper dealer).

While tracking down his poems, Vijay encounters streetwalker Gulab (Waheeda Rehman). After an initial
skirmish, Gulab develops a soft spot for Vijay. In a bid to distract himself, Vijay attends his college
reunion. Unwittingly, he finds himself face to face with Meena (Mala Sinha), his college sweetheart. The
scars of her betrayal are still fresh.

Meena, about whom he later says, 'Apne shauk ke liye pyaar karti hai aur apne aaram ke liye pyar bechti
hai [Love, for her, is a hobby that she can barter for material pleasures],' left Vijay for a life of comfort with
Ghosh (Rehman), a flourishing publisher.

Ghosh, Meena's escort to the college function, instinctively realises Vijay is a ghost from her
past.Consumed by jealousy and itching to belittle him, Ghosh employs Vijay as a clerk in his publishing
house. Sadistically, he refuses to publish Vijay's poems. During a mehfil organised at Ghosh's house,
Vijay is asked to serve drinks to the guests. Meena is unable to contain her tears. The hawk-eyed
Ghosh's worst suspicions are confirmed.

Ghosh is further incensed when he bursts in on a meeting between Vijay and Meena, which she initiates.
In a bid to punish his wife, Ghosh sacks Vijay.

Aimless, Vijay offers his coat to a beggar. When the beggar dies in a train accident, the coat he is wearing
leads to the assumption that Vijay has been killed.

A crestfallen Gulab pools her meagre resources and convinces Ghosh to publish Vijay's work
posthumously. Vijay, rendered speechless after witnessing the beggar's death, regains his voice when he
sees his book of poems. But the doctors attending to him pronounce him insane (how can he be the dead
poet?) and confine him to a mental asylum.

Ghosh, abetted by Vijay's best friend and avaricious brothers, refutes Vijay's claim that he is the poet.

Vijay escapes from the asylum and, ironically, attends his own death anniversary gathering. A
disillusioned man, he lets his identity be known -- only to deny it subsequently. Having seen the emotional
grime behind the glory, he doesn't want to sully his soul with it.

In a telling climax, an excitable and disbelieving Meena urges Vijay to think with his head instead of his
heart and embrace success, while Gulab unquestioningly sets off on a journey to anonymity and,
hopefully, accompanying inner peace, with Vijay.

Pyaasa works at two levels simultaneously -- it is an entertainer with an absorbing story as well as a
cauterising comment on the commodification of people in the quest for success, money, and power.

While cineastes respond to Dutt's philosophy and technical bravura, the layman is enamoured by Dutt's
knack for storytelling.

Each time I see this film on the eternal struggle between man's materialistic and spiritual quest, I am
struck by some new facet that had escaped me earlier. The last time I saw it, I was enamoured by the
song situations (Jaane kya tune kahi, in which Waheeda entices Guru Dutt through the winding streets
of Kolkata) and the use of symbolism, underlined by the crucifixion-like pose that Guru Dutt strikes during
the song Yeh duniya agar mil bhi jaaye toh kya hai.

This time, I noticed a clever juxtaposition of two scenes. In one, Rehman notices his wife Mala Sinha
conferring with her ex-lover and angrily belittles her by comparing her to a wanton woman.

Cut to the very next scene. Waheeda, a streetwalker who has a policeman on her heels, takes refuge in
Guru Dutt's arms. When the policeman wants to know her identity, Guru Dutt calls her his wife.

By placing these scenes one after the other, Guru Dutt underlines the fact that a man's view of a woman
is a mirror to his character -- one man sees the woman as an object of vilification while another sees her
as a fellow human being worthy of empathy.

Abrar Alvi's dialogue has scathing wisdom and his wit has bite.

When one views Pyaasa today, one is not sure if Guru Dutt is performing or only baring his acutely
sensitive soul.

Waheeda Rehman, as the golden-hearted prostitute, has the more audience-friendly role among the
heroines and makes the most of it. Ironically, Gulab, a character who has every reason to despair, is the
only ray of hope in the dismal world that Guru Dutt plunges both his character and us in.

Mala Sinha has the more difficult role. She

Song Singers essays it with understatement, a trait she
seemed to reserve only for special films
like Pyaasa and Phir Subah Hogi. She looks
ethereal and transmutes the conflict of a
Jaane kya tune kahi Geeta Dutt woman torn between her materialistic
aspirations and the calling of her heart with a
haunted glance, a lowering of her eyes, or a
Hum aapki ankhon mein Geeta Dutt, Mohammed Rafi faraway gaze.

Rehman projects both the regal bearing of a

shrewd, flourishing publisher as well as the
Jane woh kaise log Hemant Kumar insecurity of a possessive husband corroded by
envy.

Sar jo tera chakraye Mohammed Rafi Sidelights:

* Pyaasa was to be made with Nargis and

Madhubala in the roles Mala Sinha and
Aaj sanam mohe ang Geeta Dutt
Waheeda Rehman played eventually. But the
two actresses couldn't decide which role they
wanted to play and Guru Dutt eventually opted
Jinhen naaz hai Mohammed Rafi for two then new actresses, Mala and
Waheeda.

Yeh duniya agar mil bhi Mohammed Rafi * In keeping with the tradition of Guru Dutt
films, Johnny Walker had a hit, Sar jo tera
chakraye, picturised on him.

Music:
* Pyaasa marked the last collaboration of the long-lasting team of S D Burman and Sahir Ludhianvi. But it
was arguably their finest hour together.

My Life as Dog

Mischievous 12-year-old Ingemar (Anton Glanzelius) gets into all sorts of trouble, which drives his mother (Anki Lidn)
crazy; Ingemar does not know that his mother is in fact terminally ill. When he and his older brother become too much for
her, they are split up and sent to live with relatives. Ingemar ends up with his maternal uncle Gunnar (von Brmssen) and his
wife Ulla (Kicki Rundgren) in a small rural town in Smland. Gunnar and Ingemar bond over Povel Ramel's recording of "Far,
jag kan inte f upp min kokosnt" (a free rendition of the original song).

In the town he encounters a variety of characters. Saga (Kinnaman), an assertive tomboy his own age, likes him, and shows
it by beating him up in a boxing match. Among the more eccentric residents is Fransson (Magnus Rask), a man who
continually fixes the roof of his house, and Mr. Arvidsson (Didrik Gustavsson), an old man living downstairs who gets
Ingemar to read to him from a lingerie catalog.

Later, Ingemar is reunited with his family, but his mother soon takes a turn for the worse and is hospitalized. He and his
brother go to stay with their uncle Sandberg (Leif Ericson) in the city, but his wife thinks the boy is crazy. After his mother
passes away, he is sent back to Smland.

Mr. Arvidsson has died in the interim; Gunnar and Ulla now share the house with a large Greek family. Gunnar welcomes
him and consoles him as best he can, but the house is so crowded, he has Ingemar live with Mrs. Arvidsson in another
house. Meanwhile, Ingemar becomes the object of contention between Saga and another girl. When they start fighting over
him, he grabs onto Saga's leg and starts barking like a dog. She becomes upset by his strange behavior and gets him into
the boxing ring. During the bout, out of spite, she tells him that his beloved dog (which he had thought was in a kennel) was
actually euthanized. This, along with his mother's death, is too much for him and he locks himself inside Gunnar's one-room
"summer house" in the backyard. The time spent here forces Ingemar to reflect on the death of his mother, the loss of his
dog and a changing world. Ingemar uses the experiences of others and of his own personal loss to reconcile a life which is
sometimes tough.

The movie ends with the radio broadcast of a famous heavyweight championship boxing match, between Swede Ingemar
Johansson and American Floyd Patterson. When Johansson wins, the whole town erupts with joy, but the now-reconciled
Ingemar and Saga are fast asleep together on a couch.

Throughout the film, Ingemar tells himself over and over that it could have been worse, reciting several examples, such as a
man who took a shortcut onto the field during a track meet and was killed by a javelin and the story of the dog Laika several
times, the first creature sent into orbit by the Russians (without any way to get her back down).

My Life as a Dog (Mitt liv som hund)

A solid 100 percent on RottenTomatoes.com, winner of Best

foreign film at the Golden Globes and nominated for an Oscar (1985), this is the story of
Ingemar, who lives with his brother and terminally ill mother. He feels ignored and
bullied and constantly is comparing (narrating) himself to the hard times of others. At
least for example his life isn't as bad as as Laika - the Russian dog sent into space who
died without food or water, just floating away. He relates to this dog in many ways
however as he too gets sent away to stay with relatives for the summer, while his mother
hopefully recovers. While there, he meets various strange characters, giving him
experiences that will affect him for the rest of his life.
Written and directed by Lasse Hallstrm (Chocolat, Cider House Rules, What's
Eating Gilbert Grape), this tells the true (based on an autobiography) story of Ingemar,
who is a child that finds himself in a comparative pedagogical relation to all the adults
around him. He can't help but find ways to mimic their actions. His rash and
unpredictable behaviours can be attributed to the unpredictability these adults. His
uncle taking him in to dinner then asking him to move in with Mrs. Arvidson, the doctor
taking him in then suddenly arguing with his wife about throwing him out on the street,
his uncle playing around with Ingemar pretending to be dogs then the next moment
unexpectedly closing the door on him, the trapeze cyclist Fransson pretending to be
dead then suddenly awaking, Mr. Arvidson one moment asking Ingemar to read to him
then quickly taking the magazine away, most of all his mother's sickness and her moods
seem to go back and forth and ultimately the unpredictability of her death. This
unpredictability in these pedagogical models intrigues Ingemar so much that he imitates
it. How can he not be expected to do something rash like run away when asked to move
out when the question of him moving out was rash and unexpected in the first place?
Why shouldnt he close his hands over his ears to shut out a distraction or close the door
to his ranting mother when numerous times his mother asks him to close the book and
stop or when he sees his uncle close the summer house door on his wife yelling, the
uncle again closing the door on Ingemar when playing dog? In light of these models, of
course Ingemar would shut his ears, the door on his mother and the door on his uncle to
spend a night alone. Ultimately though through mimicking the unpredictable
behaviours around him, he is acting childish but unlike the adults, he has an excuse for
acting this way being that he is a child. The irony of it all however is that even though
the actions of Ingemar are childish and immature he is mimicking these behaviours
from grown-ups.
The theme of unpredictability is set from the very start as Ingemar's innocence is
presented under a tunnel which is closed off from the outside world that Ingemar hides
under. He cuts his thumb and shares the blood with a female friend, proclaiming that in
this way they are now married. This innocence and moment of naivety is interrupted by
an abrupt, sudden shot of a noisy train crushing overtop of the once peaceful tunnel. I
believe the director used this suddenness as a tool to foreshadow that Ingemar's
innocence as a child is going to be interrupted by the unpredictability of his
surroundings or in other words the unpredictability of the pedagogical relations he has
with the adults around him.
Ingemar is constantly comparing the unpredictability of life to other's experiences
and other adults. When he describes events such as a man with a kidney dying in
Chicago, a railcar death, a track and field star getting killed with a javelin, a daredevil
motorcycle jumper crashing and dying, or something as simple as him barely able to get
to page 30 but his mother finishing the book quickly, Ingemar cant help but compare
himself to those around him and relate to the unpredictability of their events and
circumstance. The example he most frequently refers to however, because it was what
he can relate to most is the example of the dog that was sent up to space with no food
and died floating in loneliness. He reflects on this example as he is sent away calling the
dog's mission an example of "human progress" as he sees his being sent away to his
uncle's a way of human progress for him and his mother to get better. The summer play
house is where he chooses to spend the night and lock his uncle out, the house that he
wanted his dog to stay in. It is in this house that he shuts the door and shuts out the
world like he continually shuts his ears off to the world wishing to be oblivious like a dog
would be. Unlike the dog's trip however, Ingemar's space trip comes in a model
spaceship on a play zip line built by a local grandfather that glides to a crash on earth.
Instead of drifting away and dying like the dog did, Ingemar finds his home in the
comfort of his friends, oblivious to the noise of the town's celebrations from a boxing
match and more importantly oblivious to the distractions of his life being treated as a
dog.

CONSENSUS
Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 100% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating and go for an 8/10."Hallstrm acknowledges
that the film is his best work, the one he compares all his other films to" (About.com). I don't doubt that this is his best film, and beautifully
crafted at that, but a perfect ten seems over the top. Don't let that discredit your motivation for seeing the film however as Axman stated it is

"One of the greatest and most sensitive films about children and the turbulence of childhood." Any educator that deals with children needs to

see this film to truly understand or become re-acquainted with what it means to be a child and how a child thinks to everyday situations.

Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert is a 1994 Australian comedy-drama film written and
directed by Stephan Elliott. The plot follows two drag queens played by Hugo Weaving and Guy Pearce and a
transgender woman, played by Terence Stamp, as they journey across the Australian
Outback from Sydney to Alice Springs in a tour bus that they have named "Priscilla", along the way
encountering various groups and individuals. The film's title is a pun on the fact that in English speaking
cultures, "queen" is a slang term for a drag queen or female impersonator.

The film was a surprise worldwide hit [2]

and its positive portrayal of LGBTindividuals helped to introduce LGBT
themes to a mainstream audience.

Anthony "Tick" Belrose, using the drag pseudonym of Mitzi Del Bra, is a Sydney based drag queen who
accepts an offer to perform his drag act at Lasseter's Hotel Casino Resort managed by his estranged wife
named Marion in Alice Springs, a remote town in central Australia. After persuading his friends and fellow
performers, Bernadette Bassinger, a recently bereaved transgender woman, and Adam Whitely,
a flamboyantand obnoxious younger drag queen who goes under the drag name Felicia Jollygoodfellow, to join
him, the three set out for a four week run at the casino in a large tour bus, which Adam christens "Priscilla,
Queen of the Desert".

While on the long journey through remote lands bordering the Simpson Desert, they meet a variety of
characters, including a group of friendly Aboriginal Australians for whom they perform, the less accepting
attitudes of rural Australia in such towns as Coober Pedy, and are subjected to homophobic abuse, violence,
including having their tour bus vandalised with the words "AIDS Fuckers Go Home".

When the tour bus breaks down in the middle of the desert, Adam spends the whole day repainting it lavender
to cover up the vandalism. The trio later meet Bob, a middle-aged mechanic from a small outback town who
joins them on their journey. Before they arrive at Alice Springs, Tick reveals that Marion is actually his wife, as
they never divorced, and that they are actually going there as a favour to her. Continuing their journey, Adam is
almost mutilated by a homophobic gang before he is saved by Bob and Bernadette. Adam is shaken and
Bernadette comforts him, allowing them to reach an understanding. Likewise, the others come to terms with the
secret of Tick's marriage and resolve their differences. Together, they fulfil a long-held dream of Adam's, which,
in the original plan, is to climb Uluru in full drag regalia ("A cock in a frock on a rock"), although the location was
changed to King's Canyon in the film (see below).

Upon arrival at the hotel, it is revealed that Tick and Marion also have an eight year old son, Benjamin, whom
Tick has not seen for many years. Tick is nervous about exposing his son to his drag profession and anxious
about revealing his homosexuality, though he is surprised to discover that Benjamin already knows and is fully
supportive of his father's sexuality and career. By the time their contract at the resort is over, Tick and Adam
head back to Sydney, taking Benjamin back with them, so that Tick can get to know his son. However,
Bernadette decides to remain at the resort for a while with Bob, who has decided to work at the hotel after the
two of them had become close.

For many Americans, Australian cinema will always begin and end with the
1980s Crocodile Dundee series. Because Australia has always suffered the
obscurity of its location and cultural disconnect from other international
cinema markets, the lure of the swaggering leather-faced Paul Hogan taking
on America had the cross-international appeal to make Australian cinema
global.
There are very few exceptions to this canon of crocodile hunters and the odd
Mel Gibson flick, one of which was the 1994 film The Adventures of Priscilla,
The Queen of the Desert. The film concerns a band of rejects, queers, and
drag queens who set out on the open road in the harsh and arid Australian
outback to hitch up their skirts and get groovy to Gloria Gaynor all the while
learning a lesson or two about themselves.
As you recall, The Adventures of Priscilla tells the story of two men, Adam
(Guy Pearce) and Anthony (Hugo Weaving), and fellow transwoman traveller
Bernadette (Terrence Stamp) on a trip to the center of Australia to perform in
a drag queen residency show. Originally, Anthony is offered the job to
perform in Alice Springs alone but recruits the rather icy Bernadette who
recently lost her partner and the obnoxious Adam to join him on this road
trip. Each character has, however, concealed some secret before their
expedition and we see their epic travelling paralleling the percolating
emotional problems of our respective heroes and heroines.
Priscilla, with its gaudy make-up, excessive sequins, and camp '70s tunes
defined a decade of Australian cinema and truly opened up the filmic
reservoirs for more mainstream and positive representations of diverse LGBT
folks on screen. After a successful musical theater revival, and in light of the
film's 20th-anniversary this year, its time to turn up the ABBA and return to
this cult classic.
When the film first premiered, Priscilla was a welcome change from other
queer texts, offering a more intimate and incautious account of one lovable
band of queers from Sydney. Given the historical pathologization of the likes
of gay men and transgendered individuals, the film offered a more intimate
and dignified representation of this outcast crowd.
One of the reasons for the success of Priscilla was due to the fact that it was
made in Australia. Although a distant continent from Europe and North
America, Australia cinema capitalized on Australian characters heading
abroad and had already generated alternative characters who thrive
somewhat comically, somewhat movingly in their new homes abroad or
new worlds (think Dundee). In the case of Priscilla, international audiences
came to worship the extravagantly carnivalesque sights of two men and a
transgender woman jettisoning across Australias dry and unforgiving deserts
to bring the cosmopolitan cityscape to the countryside.
 Hugo Weaving in 'Priscilla'

Any road trip film, whether queer or otherwise, offers its audience the
promise of change, transition, and some type of momentous epiphany that
we as viewers move along with during the screen time (both emotionally and
with the film itself). Priscilla proves no different and has our hero/heroines
involved in familiar and emotional suburban stories (meeting up with an
estranged son or losing a partner) during their journey, while battling the
unforgiving and unaccepting homophobic and transphobic communities
across the Australian landscape.
As for context, the 1990s offered a time of (brief) relief for the queer
community, as the devastating costs of the HIV/AIDS epidemic momentarily
subsided in the wake of developments in anti-retroviral medication and the
growing acceptance of gay men and trans folks. It was a time for recollection
and a return to the camp and dated indulgences of the liberated and
promising 1970s that the AIDS epidemic so brutally stole from the LGBT
community during a decade plagued by stigma and shame.
While the film avoids any detailed and direct discussion of HIV/AIDS in gay
communities, it does importantly remind audiences of the lingering impact of
the crisis when we see the eponymous Priscilla mobile home graffitied with
the tag AIDS FUCKERS GO HOME during one unsuccessful stay in a small
country town. But in true gay liberation style, the bus is rebranded with a
luscious pink lick of paint and proudly journeys onwards.
This is why Priscilla so wonderfully and so aggressively worked in the 1990s
and succeeded in showing us the trauma and strength that the rich gay male
(drag queen or otherwise) culture can offer for the transcendence and
psychic relief from the pain of daily stigmatised life. There are times when we
should simply celebrate and embrace the awfulness of our pop culture
histories and spinning around in heels to ABBAs Mamma Mia (before the
Meryl musical) is just one way to do so.
Rewatching the original trailer alone aligns Anthony, Adam, and Bernadette
with 1940s Hollywood film genres around stars, classic Hollywood cinema,
and the glamorous camera close up. Between lip-synching sessions of
Alicia Bridges seminally '70s song I Love the Nightlife and Vanessa
Williams melodically uplifting Save the Best for Last, the queens
of Priscilla exploit the camp potential in their performances while importantly
underscoring the loneliness and isolation their colourful careers bring.
In reassessing the film for its 20th anniversary, however, one does see the
problematic racial and sexual politics operating in Australia at this time.
Scenes where we see characters ironize the coquetry of '90s video store
culture such as flirting with the attendant about the availability of The
Texas Chainsaw Mas-cara are satisfying in their campness. But other
moments are riddled with racism, especially concerning the non-white
figures of the film.
Although gay men and transgendered individuals have suffered the stigma of
the heterosexual society at large, the three characters whiteness is a fact
taken for granted. Their sexual and gender orientations are what lead to their
pathologization and brutal homophobic and transphobic battles across
Australia.
Commentators on existing gay communities and gay culture at large have
pointed out its overwhelming whiteness that is, gay communities and
cultures are mostly defined by white men enjoying the company of other
white men, seeking to their rights of marriage, equality, and social equity.
While this is a longer dialogue to be had elsewhere, it is important to see
that the film Priscilla is no different from other gay films that continued to
marginalize other races, despite these queers facing their own stigma and
shame throughout the course of their journey.
Women fare no better, and although we see song after song by a woman
sung or imitated by the likes of Vanessa Williams or the ABBA idols during
their cross-country trip, the actual women they encounter are painted with
an excessively patriarchal brush. One woman in particular, Cynthia, is a
Filipino woman who is portrayed with negative stereotypes many white
Westerns hold of Asian women: She's a mail-order bride because she offers
her straight, swaggering husband sex and domesticity. In one memorable
scene, she pops out ping-pong balls (while winking at the camera, no less)
from one particular sexual organ to a crowd of drunken and crude applauding
men at the pub who each compete to catch the wet, flying cannon ball (that
scene has been recreated in the stage show, without much complaint).
Women in Priscilla seemed threatened by the presence of two men imitating
women and one transwoman (who transitioned from male to female) when
they enter their towns public spaces. In a terrifying moment, we see
Bernadette cut down by one thunderously butch woman who abuses them
and orders the drag crew to leave the local bar. However, not before long, in a
terrifically bizarre turn of events, we see Bernadette and the woman enter a drinking contest with her while a
raucous of straight men in the pub cheer on the defiant Bernadette to a victorious end.

This is only one of many of their encounters during their journey into the
Australian outback and although these meets and stop-offs work with the
road trip template, and suggest the maturing growth of our heroes/heroines,
they do not fare well on those folks who are defined purely for their sexuality
or their value as validating existing stereotypes. Whether or not the females
or racially diverse counterparts should have been represented more
complexly and intimately is perhaps a discussion to be continued elsewhere.
Years later, Priscilla spawned a successful theater and Broadway revival that
has received universal acclaim for its glamour, gaudiness, and sheer
gayness. (So much so, Bette Midler was one of the producers of the 2011
Broadway season.) This speaks volumes to the impact this little Australian
LGBT movie has had across a diverse number of artistic mediums theater,
music, and ultimately cinema (with the American equivalent to it To Wong
Foo Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar made a year later, in 1995).
Unreservedly, Priscillas attempt to mainstream the lives of LGBT figures who
work within an underrepresented industry and live in an underprivileged and
shamed underclass, is an earnest and significant one. The fact that the film
has endured for 20 years and still continues to have a high circulation value
as a cult classic in gay male subcultures (whether through the soundtrack,
the Broadway show, or even just the film itself) speaks to its importance as a
text that attempted to represent more authentically bisexual, gay, and
transgender stories to an audiences that were mostly unfamiliar to these
plights.
While there has been a chorus of cries that the richness of gay male culture
is on its way out since gay bars are no longer as popular as they used to be,
or that gay idols are speaking to directly to gay causes and no longer
through subtext (Lady Gaga, anyone?), Priscillas endurance speaks against
this proclamation. Although the film represents only one aspect of gay
culture drag queen life, Donna Summer songs, and the sowing and
stitching of sequins its success during the last twenty years has only
underscored the desire audiences have had to savour the campness and
queen-ness that excess, nostalgia, and drag queens can provide.
Wild Strawberries

The movie opens when 78-year-old Isak Borg, played by Victor Sjstrm, is in bed at home. He dreams about being on a
city street with no other people present. A clock hanging above the street has no hands. Isak checks his pocket watch; it too
has no hands. A figure appears with its back turned. Isak walks up to the figure and touches it. It has no face. The figure
collapses onto the pavement. Blood streams out of the figure. Next a hearse drawn by a team of horses turns a corner and
enters the street on which the dream-Isak is standing. It approaches Isak and then passes him but its rear wheel gets caught
on a lamppost. Although no one is driving the hearse, the horses continue forward. The left rear wheel breaks off at the
lamppost. The horses and hearse drive away but the coffin comes loose, and slides out and onto the street. A hand appears
on the outside of the coffin. Isak looks at the hand. His hand and the hand outstretched from the coffin touch, with the hand
coming out of the coffin holding Isak. The body in the coffin is also Isak. He awakes.

The viewer senses the loneliness in Isak. And that Isak's time is running out. These are themes that come up again and
again through the day.

He leaves his bedroom to waken his maid Agda, played by Jullan Kindahl. Isak asks her to pack his suitcase and prepare
breakfast for him. He has decided to drive to Lund, where he will later today receive an honorary doctorate as an award for
his contributions to medicine. They squabble because they had previously planned to fly from Stockholm to Lund. While
eating breakfast, Marianne, Isak's daughter-in-law, enters the breakfast room. She is played by Ingrid Thulin. Marianne has
been staying at Isak's house, and asks if she can accompany Isak on the 300-mile drive from Stockholm to Lund. He
agrees.

They depart. Marianne tries to smoke but Isak objects. There is some tension in the car almost from the beginning of the trip.
They manage to converse. Isak mentions that his son, Evald, owes his father money, and on principle is going to pay it back,
a principle both father and son endorse. Marianne talks about her relationship with Evald, who, like his father, is a physician.
A good deal is revealed, especially in a flashback that summarizes the conversation in the car. Her marriage to Evald
(Gunnar Bjrnstrand) is tense and unhappy. Evald is as rigid as Isak but Evald dislikes his father. Evald and Marianne
quarreled sharply when she revealed to him that she was pregnant. He objected, and said he did not want children. Isak's
marriage was also an unhappy one. At this particular juncture, the viewer develops a sense of the film's power of truth-
telling.

Isak decides to make a detour, and drives to the house where, during his youth, he spent many summers. One could find in
the summer house his mother and father and 10 brothers and sisters as well as visiting cousins, uncles, and aunts.
Marianne goes off to swim in the lake, leaving Isak alone. He walks up to a patch of wild strawberries (the Swedish title of
the film better translates to "wild strawberry patch"). Isak begins remembering his youthful days at the house and the land
nearby. Flashbacks with Isak still in the scene show some of what life was like there long ago. His cousin Sara is picking wild
strawberries to give to her deaf uncle as a birthday present when Sigfrid (Per Sjstrand), Isak's brother, arrives. Sigfrid helps
her pick strawberries and flirts with her. They kiss. She is at first willing but then breaks away. She is too committed to the
young Isak to continue the dalliance. Isak at that moment is away with his father fishing in the lake.

At the lunch table, Isak's twin sisters, who are loud and naive, report on the interlude between Sara and Sigfrid,
embarrassing Sara. One of the twins is played by director Ingmar Bergman's daughter. The older Isak looks in on the scene.
Sara, upset, leaves the table, and is consoled by her aunt, with Isak looking on. Sara describes how she thinks Isak is too
good for her. He is too upright. Sigfrid is more playful.

The viewer learns that Isak was in love with Sara but ultimately she married his brother Sigfrid. Isak is the last of the 10 Borg
children alive. Sara, Sigfrid's widow, is still alive and in her 70s.

Near the house, a teenage girl and two boys come into the scene. One is her boyfriend and the other is a kind of chaperone.
They are hitchhiking. Their ultimate destination is Italy. The girl, whose name is also Sara, is played by Bibi Andersson (Bibi
Andersson and Ingrid Thulin have long been part of Bergman's company of players). Andersson also plays the Sara who
was Isak's long-ago love. Of course, the present-Sara reminds Isak of his long-ago, and lost, Sara. The boys, Anders (Folke
Sundquist) and Viktor (Bjrn Bjelfvenstam), argue about the existence of God and other matters, and Sara tries to keep their
arguments civil. Although one boy is closer to Sara than the other, the viewer gets the sense that both are interested in her,
much the way Sigfrid and Isak were interested in the Sara of long ago but only one will succeed with her.

Back on the road, a Volkswagon beetle comes hurtling around a bend, and nearly crashes into Isak's big old Packard. Isak's
black car is reminiscent of a hearse. The VW turns over but the passengers are unhurt, physically that is. The man (Gunnar
Sjberg) and woman (Gunnel Brostrm) in the car are a married couple almost out of Strindberg. The accident, the husband
admits, was the result of driving while quarreling.

Isak agrees to put the two in the car, and drive on toward Lund. The husband and wife are settled into jumper seats but
continue to bicker. The husband needles the wife incessantly. She smacks him several times. Marianne, who is driving,
stops the car, and orders the two to exit the car for the sake of the young people riding in the back.

The car, now reduced to five travelers, stops at a service station that is run by a husband (Max von Sydow) and wife (Ann-
Marie Wiman). Here we learn about another side of Isak. The couple is very happy to see Isak. Apparently long ago he
worked some wonderful medicine to help the family. They admire him greatly, and absolutely refuse to let him pay for the
gas or any of the work they did on the car. She is pregnant, and plans to name her child, if it is a son, Isak, after the doctor.
Isak asks them to notify him when the child is born. He would like to be the child's godfather.

They soon stop at a restaurant. The group has a delightful lunch at an outdoor terrace overlooking the beautiful Lake
Vttern. Isak enjoys the company of the young people. The young people learn about Isak's award.

There is another stop on the journey. At Isak's request, Marianne drives to the house of his ancient mother. Her house is en
route. Marianne accompanies Isak into the house, and the young people remain in the car. Isak's mother is in her mid-90s
and complains that she is always cold and that none of her grandchildren visit her. Mrs. Borg shows them some old artifacts
from an earlier era, old toys and a pocket watch with no hands, the same pocket watch that appeared in Isak's dream at the
beginning of the film. Later in the car, Marianne tells Isak how she is impressed by the mother's coldness. Marianne senses
how that coldness runs through the family down to Evald.

Isak falls asleep in the car while Marianne drives. He dreams that he is being given an examination by a professor of
medicine. The professor is none other than the man Marianne asked to leave the car earlier that day. The cadaver he is to
check is the man's wife but she isn't dead. Isak fails the examination. Perhaps it was not a medical school examination at all
but an examination of how a lonely and aloof man lived his life. He awakes.

The car has stopped. The young people have gone into a forest glen to gather flowers to make a bouquet for Isak. He is
flattered by their attention.

They reach Lund. Evald is in his home to greet them. Agda is there too although she was so angry in the morning that there
was a chance she would not come. The three young people come. Isak, Marianne, and Evald dress for the ceremony which
is an hour away. The young people plant themselves along the route of the processional to cheer Isak. The ceremony
expresses great dignity and achievement, with many words uttered in Latin.

Afterwards Isak is in Evald and Marianne's house although the viewer has the feeling that it is not going to be Marianne's
house much longer. Isak tries to induce Agda to call him by his first name; after all they have known each other for 40 years.
She declines.

Isak is in bed in a second-floor bedroom. The young people serenade Isak from the garden below. He wishes them well as
they got a lift to Hamburg and are closer yet to their goal of reaching Italy.

Evald comes in. Isak wants Evald to forget about the debt. Isak also wants Evald and Marianne to reconcile. Marianne
enters the room, and she and Isak have an affectionate exchange. The she heads off to party with Evald. The viewer gets a
sense that Isak has to some extent broken through his loneliness and reconciled with the important people in his life.

Winter 1956-1957 was a time of intensive and fruitful labour for Bergman. The summer
had been devoted to The Seventh Seal, followed by three productions at the Malm City
Theatre: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Erik XIV and Peer Gynt. But his general health was
poor. As spring approached he was admitted to Stockholm's Karolinska University
Hospital where he remained for almost two months 'for general observation and
treatment.' It was during this period that he wrote the screenplay for Wild Strawberries.
In an interview from the 1960s he speaks of a journey to Dalarnaduring the autumn of
1956 when he stopped off in Uppsala at his grandmothers' house on Slottsgatan [though
in fact it was Trdgrdsgatan]. He was overcome by a particular feeling: just imagine if
the old cook Lalla were to open the door, just as she had done so many times before?

Then it struck me: supposing I make a film of someone coming along, perfectly realistically,
and suddenly opening a door and walking into his childhood? And then opening another
door and walking out into reality again? And then walking round the corner of the street and
coming into some other period of his life, and everything still alive and going on as before?
That was the real starting point of Wild Strawberries.

Later he would revise the story of the film's genesis. In Images: My Life in Film he
comments on his own earlier statement: 'That's a lie. The truth is that I am forever living
in my childhood.'

Nevertheless, the screenplay was begun in earnest during his stay in hospital in the
spring of 1957. The project had been given the seal of approval by Carl Anders Dymling,
who had been shown a short synopsis. Bergman's doctor at Karolinska was his good
friend Sture Helander, who invited Ingmar to attend his lectures on psychosomatics.
Helander was married to Gunnel Lindblom who was to play Isak's sister Charlotta in the
film. In general, casting and other preparations seem to have progressed with
remarkable speed, since the completed screenplay is dated 31 May and shooting began
on 2 July. The fact that many of the actors came from the Malm City Theatre company
probably helped in the process.

The casting of the heavyweight principal role Isak Borg is a story in itself. Given that
Wild Strawberries is probably the one film of Bergman that bears the closest
relationship with his favourite film The Phantom Carriage, one might imagine that the
participation of Victor Sjstrm was planned from an early stage. Yet this does not
appear to be the case. In Bergman on Bergman he has stated that he only thought of
Sjstrm when the screenplay was complete, and that he asked Dymling to contact the
great man. Yet in Images: My Life in Film he claims that: 'It is probably worth noting
that I never for a moment thought of Sjstrm when I was writing the screenplay. The
suggestion came from the film's producer, Carl Anders Dymling. As I recall, I thought
long and hard before I agreed to let him have the part.' We shall never know the true
story, but in the finished film, Sjstrm's role was of fundamental importance.

Sources of inspiration
Of all Bergman's works, Wild Strawberries is one of the most widely imitated and
referred to (see below). It is also one of only a few films in which Bergman's own sources
of inspiration and creative borrowings are most clearly discernible.

The influences of August Strindberg widespread in Bergman are immediately

apparent. Strindberg's introduction to A Dream Play (which is later quoted openly
in Fanny and Alexander) might also appear to be the credo of Wild Strawberries:
Time and space do not exist. Upon an insignificant background of real life events, the
imagination spins and weaves new patterns; a blend of memories, experiences, pure
inventions, absurdities and improvisations.

Given that during the five years prior to Wild Strawberries Bergman produced no fewer
than three Strindberg plays (The Crown Bride, Ghost Sonata, Erik XIV) the affinities are
hardly surprising. Strindberg's sworn enemy Henrik Ibsen also appears to have had a
key influence on Wild Strawberries. Not least Peer Gynt, which Bergman had
produced just before he wrote the screenplay for the film. Like the eponymous hero of
that play, Isak in Wild Strawberries takes stock of his life.

The many borrowings of the film were noted in one of the few negative reviews it
received, criticising the film for too many literary references and a lack of originality:

From the Ibsen era comes the old clich about the living who are actually dead. From His
Lord's Will [Hjalmar Bergman's Hans nds testamente] the amusing quarrels with the
faithful servant. In skilfully contrived dream sequences the influence of Pr Lagerkvist can
be discerned, when Strindberg is not making his contributions with the distinguished
academic who is forced to undergo a viva.

As mentioned, one obvious cinematic influence is Sjstrm's The Phantom Carriage, the
film which, according to Bergman, was: the film of all films. 'I saw it for the first time
when I was fifteen; to this day I see it at least once every summer, either alone or in the
company of younger people. I clearly see how The Phantom Carriagehas influenced my
own work, right down to minute details.'

The first dream sequence, with its funeral - albeit without a driver - is a clear example of
the influence of Sjstrm, as is the clock without hands, which can be found in Karin
Ingmarsdotter. But the most obvious celebration of his cinematic hero is naturally the
appearance in the film of the man himself. According to Bergman, Sjstrm 'took my
text, made it his own, invested it with his own experiences':

[...] loneliness, coldness, warmth, harshness, and ennui. Borrowing my father's form, he
occupied my soul and made it all his own - there wasn't even a crumb left over for me! He
did so with the sovereign power of a gargantuan personality. I had nothing to add, not even
a sensible or irrational comment. Wild Strawberries was no longer my film; it was Victor
Sjstrm's!

Apart from obvious borrowings from other works, the inspiration for Wild Strawberries
can also be traced to Bergman's more personal experiences. As usual, Bergman himself
is forthcoming with his own biographical details, not least in this case his relationship
with his parents, a relationship that was particularly troubled at around this period: 'I
tried to put myself in my father's place and sought explanations for the bitter quarrels
with my mother. [...] Isak Borg equals me. I B equals Ice and Borg (the Swedish word for
fortress). Simple and facile. I had created a character who, on the outside, looked like
my father, but was me, through and through'

The painful identification with the father from whom he had distanced himself is central
to the razor-sharp portraits of Isak Borg and his world-weary son, Evald. And the
presentation of one and the same person as both old and young is a theme dear to
Bergman's heart right up to his very latest works. The theme can be traced back to the
prose work Bo Dahlin's notes on the divorce of parents (1951), which contains a scene
between a jealous son and his mother's lover. Maaret Koskinen has recognised this as
one of the familiar stylistic devices in Bergman's work's: 'At times, one gets the
impression that Bergman himself has, in places, confronted a younger and older version
of one and the same ego, who enter a conversation between themselves (also a favourite
device in later works).'

Another, more intriguing source for the device of portraying oneself in two versions can
be found in an entertaining article by Bergman in the popular Swedish magazine Se,
written shortly before the filming of Wild Strawberries. The article is an ironic self
portrait based around an alleged event at the Cannes Film Festival, where they played
'festival roulette with my film Smiles of a Summer Night.' A Russian artist asked if he
could draw Bergman's portrait, placing his subject half turned towards a large mirror:

'After a while the picture was finished and I was allowed to see it. There were two
Bergmans: one, as it were, direct, and one in the mirror. The first had a childish, almost
foolish expression on his face. The image in the mirror was of an old man, a ghost with a
weary look.'

It is hard not to regard one of the key scenes of Wild Strawberries, a dream sequence
where Isak is forced to look at himself in a mirror held up by Sara, in which he sees an
old man, in the light of this anecdote. Whether or not it is actually true is of minor
significance.

Finally, one may also speculate as to whether a number of well-known paintings

provided the inspiration for some of the shots in the film (although this has never been
confirmed by Bergman). The dream sequence scene in which Isak Borg is forced to
witness his wife's infidelity bears both pictorial and thematic similarities with Edvard
Munch's 'Jealousy'. And some of the more idyllic scenes of childhood bear distinct
parallels with Carl Larsson's 'Crayfishing'.

Shooting the film

Shooting began on 2 July 1957, and took place for the most part at the Filmstaden
studios in Rsunda, just outside Stockholm. A couple of scenes were filmed in
Stockholm's old town, Gamla Stan, and scenes from the car journey were shot on
location: Slussen in Stockholm; Grnna (including lunch at the Gyllene Uttern
restaurant); Dalar and ngs in the Stockholm archipelago; and at the University
Square in Lund

During the shooting, the health of the 79-year-old Sjstrm gave cause for concern.
Dymling had persuaded him to take on the role with the words: 'All you have to do is lie
under a tree, eat wild strawberries and think about your past, so it's nothing too
arduous.' But in the event, it proved to be rather demanding. During the first few days
Sjstrm had problems with his lines, which made him frustrated and angry. To
unburden his revered mentor, Bergman made a pact with Ingrid Thulin that if anything
went wrong during a scene, she would take the blame on herself. Things gradually got
better, especially when they changed filming times so that Sjstrm could get home in
time for his customary late afternoon whisky at 4.30. And the old charmer's obvious
delight at playing opposite the 22-year-old Bibi Andersson was another plus.

Sjstrm's presence on the set was also a source of entertainment and cinema history
education for the team. In Bergman's words: 'Victor Sjstrm was an excellent
storyteller, funny and engaging especially if some young, beautiful woman happened
to be present. We were sitting at the very source of film history, both Swedish and
American.'

The film's cinematographer was Gunnar Fischer. Recalling the famous, deliberately
over-exposed nightmare scene at the start of the film, Fischer has observed that he and
Bergman attempted to intensify the impact of the nightmare with the light effects.

We agreed we would try to create hard images, try to eradicate all the softness of the grey
scales. And unusually enough, I managed to acquire a few metres of spare film to
experiment with. In general we had to make do with a bare minimum of film[...] I think I
opted for a very fast, light-sensitive film. And then we were lucky with the street we were
about to film. The sunlight was very strong indeed, ideal for the kind of black and white
images we wanted. Yet when we returned after lunch the sun had moved as it does right
in the middle of the street was the shadow of a large birch tree. What could we do? I could
hardly contact the studio and say: 'Can you saw down that birch tree?' Maybe you can do
that sort of thing in Hollywood, but not in Stockholm. I don't remember what we did
exactly, but you can still notice that shadow at times.

The nightmare sequence was shot for the most part in the Filmstaden studios, apart
from a couple of takes of the funeral, which were filmed in Gamla Stan at around two
o'clock in the morning (there is clear daylight at that time of the year in Stockholm).
According to Fischer, the crew suddenly heard the cheery song of revellers on their way
home from a night on the town. When they caught sight of a funeral coming towards
them without a driver, their singing quickly fell silent.

One of the most peculiar incidents during the shooting of the film involves the many
hundreds of snakes that were intended to serve as extras in the dream scene where Isak
witnesses his wife's infidelity. 'Wherever I looked it seemed that snakes were coming to
life, springing out of the porous, swamp-like earth.'

It was probably just as well that the scene never came off, since the symbolism of the
snakes would have been so overtly Freudian. But the actual reason why the snakes never
featured in the film is worth recounting: the night before shooting they had all escaped
from the terrarium in which they were being held and moved off into the neighbouring
woods.

Epilogue
Filming came to an end on 27 August 1957, and the technical work started almost
immediately. Oscar Rosander was the principal editor. The film was premiered in seven
Swedish cities on 26 December 1957. The reviews were keenly enthusiastic, with one or
two exceptions.

The film was selected to compete at the Berlin Film Festival, where it won the Golden
Bear Award as Best Film. Reporting for Cahiers du cinma, Jean-Luc Godard's short
telegram to the home office is worth quoting: 'Golden Bear Wild Strawberries proves
Ingmar greatest stop script fantastic about flas conscience Victor Sjstrm dazzled
beauty Bibi Andersson stop multiply Heidegger by Giraudoux get Bergman stop.'
Wild Strawberries remains Bergman's most successful film in terms of the number of
awards it has received, and it firmly established Bergman's reputation as a filmmaker on
the international stage.

With the possible exception of The Seventh Seal, Wild Strawberries is the Bergman film
that other filmmakers have referred to most. Philip and Kersti French have even
described it as 'the real ur-road movie', claiming that other films in the genre such
as Easy Rider owe an implicit debt to Bergman's film. This may be an exaggeration,
but whether in the form of parody or homage, there are numerous references to Wild
Strawberries in the films of directors as diverse as Pedro Almodvar (High Heels),
Andr Tchin (My Favourite Season), David Cronenberg and Tim Burton. Yet the most
tireless devotee of the film is surely Woody Allen, who has made at least three films that
wholly or in part be seen as appendages to Wild Strawberries: Another
Woman, Crimes and Misdemeanors and Deconstructing Harry.

Finally, given that Bergman himself has said that he attempted to model Isak Borg on
his own father, with whom he was in bitter feud at the time, it is interesting to see
Bergman senior's reaction to the film. In a letter to its leading actor he wrote:

Dear Victor Sjstrm!

Permit me, Ingmar's father, to send you my respectful greetings and my heartfelt thanks for
your brilliant performance in Ingmar's latest film. And thank you for all you have given to
Ingmar and to me, and to countless others through your noble artistry and the spiritual
inspiration of your entire work. I will always remember with gratitude the friendly,
encouraging words you spoke to me about Ingmar when he was still very young, and I stood
before you in doubt and uncertainty.

My wife joins me in expressing our warm thanks.

Respectfully yours

Erik Bergman

4/1 58