Lost World, The (1960)

Lost World, The (1960)

“Live dinosaurs!”

Synopsis:
A scientist (Claude Rains) claiming to have found a lost city filled with dinosaurs is challenged by a skeptical colleague (Richard Haydn) to embark on a return expedition with additional passengers to prove he’s telling the truth. Soon Rains and Haydn are on a trip to South America with the spoiled daughter (Jill St. John) of the trip’s funder, the noble adventurer (Michael Rennie) St. John is in love with, St. John’s younger brother (Ray Stricklyn), and a reporter (David Hedison); once there, they are joined by a helicopter pilot (Fernando Lamas) and his pal (Jay Novello) on a trek through the jungles.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Claude Rains Films
  • Fantasy
  • Michael Rennie Films
  • Richard Haydn Films
  • Scientists

Review:
Oscar-winning special effects guru Willis O’Brien was listed as an “effects technician” for this adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s 1912 novel of the same name (first made in 1925 with O’Brien’s stop-motion animated creatures). Unfortunately, this later iteration (produced by Irwin Allen) is widely considered a dud, in no small part due to the creatures on display being actual live lizards decked up to portray dinosaurs:

(According to Wikipedia, the lizards “employed” include “an iguana with glued on horns”; two monitor lizards with glued-on frills, plates, and/or sails; a “tokay gecko with glued-on horns and a sail”; and “a spectacled caiman and an alligator with glued-on horns, a small tail, and a small sail.”)

I don’t personally take offense with this tactic, given that the creatures are believable enough as random beasts existing in a modern-day hidden world (even if they don’t look like familiar dinosaurs) — but other effects, like a glowing superimposed tarantula, are pretty god-awful.

Most annoying, however, is the presence of St. John’s vapid heiress, who sneaks her way onto the trip with her tiny dog Frosty, and wears impossibly impractical clothing.

Meanwhile, as DVD Savant writes, the film’s portrayal of native peoples is flat-out offensive:

“One native girl in a sexy outfit (Vitina Marcus) is on hand to betray her people for the sake of the explorers that yell at her and drag her around. She ends up holding hands with Jill St. John’s cute younger brother. The natives, of course, are unga-bunga non-entities with only one remarkable quality: no matter how slowly the heroes run, the tribesmen never catch up.”

It should be noted that Claude Rains fans will be disappointed by his silly role here:

… and Haydn’s presence is equally useless. You can feel free to skip this one unless you’re curious.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Winton Hoch’s colorful cinematography

Must See?
No; this isn’t must-see.

Links:

Fantastic Voyage (1966)

Fantastic Voyage (1966)

“We’re afraid of sabotage: surgical assassination.”

Synopsis:
During the Cold war, a U.S. secret agent (Stephen Boyd) is recruited by General Carter (Edmond O’Brien) of the CMDF (Combined Miniaturized Deterrence Forces) to join a team — including Dr. Duval (Arthur Kennedy), Dr. Duval’s assistant Cora (Raquel Welch), Dr. Michaels (Donald Pleasence), and a pilot (William Redfield) — travelling on a submarine into the brain of a dying scientist (Jean Del Val) in order to remove a blood clot so he can share a vital secret about miniaturization.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Arthur Kennedy Films
  • Donald Pleasence Films
  • Edmond O’Brien Films
  • Raquel Welch Films
  • Richard Fleischer Films
  • Science Fiction
  • Stephen Boyd Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary doesn’t seem to be a huge fan of this ’60s sci-fi adventure film “directed by Richard Fleischer, who did a marvelous job years before on 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, which has a couple of plot similarities.” He notes that as the team travels the scientist’s body, “they encounter a fantastic foreign world of giant monsters (antibodies) and other dangers” — and “to make matters worse, one of them [on the team] is trying to sabotage the mission.”

While Peary concedes that “the premise is terrific,” he adds that “considering it can be used only once in films” (why is that, exactly?) “it’s a shame this effort wasn’t a bit more exciting and inventive.” He writes that while “there are a few good moments,” the “special effects aren’t particularly effective, the sets look phony, the dialogue is trite, Stephen Boyd makes a dull leading man (have you ever met a Stephen Boyd fan?), and Raquel Welch, the era’s sex symbol, is too bundled up.” (Boyd doesn’t seem too upset about this in the shot below, when he’s “forced” to stare at Welch’s bust during a particularly turbulent moment on the ride.)

I think Peary’s review “misses the boat” a bit (sorry for the pun) for this film. Yes, some of the dialogue is dated and corny at times — but humorously so, as when Boyd tries in vain to bow out of the mission:

Boyd: But I don’t want to be miniaturized!
O’Brien: It’s just for an hour.

Or in this ensuing discussion about Welch:

Arthur O’Connell (as Colonel Reid): A woman has no place on a mission of this kind!
Kennedy: I insist on taking my technician!
O’Connell: You’ll take along who I assign.
Kennedy: Don’t tell me who I’m going to work with! Not on this operation. I’ll do what I think is best, without interference!
Pleasence: Dr. Duval has relied on Miss Peterson for years…

Meanwhile, I disagree that the “special effects aren’t particularly effective” and “the sets look phony”: authenticity seems besides the point in a fantasy adventure like this. Instead, one marvels at the audacity and precision of the proceedings, which carry forth in all seriousness (it takes more than half-an-hour for the team to finally get going on their trip):

The miniaturization effects are suitably impressive for the era:

… and the Oscar-winning sets are visually memorable:

Sure, there are a ton of “holes” to be poked (sorry again for the pun) in the science of this storyline — but it’s all in good fun, and one watches with genuine investment to learn the fate of this plucky crew. This film is worth a one-time look simply for being so unique and fearless in its approach.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Ernest Laszlo’s cinematography
  • Oscar-winning art direction and special effects

Must See?
Yes, as a unique sci-fi adventure with impressive moxie.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Underworld U.S.A. (1961)

Underworld U.S.A. (1961)

“Don’t tell me the end of a needle has a conscience.”

Synopsis:
Years after his dad is gunned down in an alley, an ex-con (Cliff Robertson) seeks revenge on the men responsible for his murder.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cliff Robertson Films
  • Ex-Cons
  • Mafia
  • Revenge
  • Sam Fuller Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
In Peary’s review of this film about an ex-con who “infiltrates the mob in order to rub out the three surviving criminal bigwigs whom he saw beat his father to death years before,” he points out that “only in Sam Fuller’s America can a petty thief move all the way up in the organization” as Robertson’s Tolly Devlin does.

He adds that “this unflinching crime drama… draws parallels between criminals and lawmen, who wage war against each other in the identical emotionless manner, planning their strategies in nearby buildings.”

He points out that the “picture shows how the criminal element has ruined the fabric of our society”:

… and that “Fuller’s sympathy lies with children who are victimized if parents are either mobsters or top-level lawmen (who are forced to accept payoffs to keep their kids alive) or who are seduced into a world of prostitution and drugs.”

He notes that the film depicts mobsters as “some of our most respectable, philanthropic citizens when not involved in criminal activities”; for instance, “Fuller has them meet by a swimming pool to contrast their filthy personalities with clean water.”

Indeed, Fuller is not exactly known for his subtlety; throughout the film we see “typical strong Fuller visuals”, and know exactly how characters are meant to relate to one another through strategic placement and framing (particularly of baby photos and dolls).

Peary warns us that “you’ll want to wash our hands after [this film is] over,” given the “unusual” fact that “our ‘hero’ really is a bastard.” In his review of the film for TCM, Richard Harland Smith notes that “even with the studio vetting, Underworld U.S.A. remains brutal stuff, with characters beaten, shot, drowned, burned alive and one 9 year-old innocent run down in the street as a warning against finking.”

Yikes. With that said, as Peary points out, “Robertson gives one of his best performances”:

… and there are several “memorable” performances among the supporting cast, including “beautiful Dolores Dorn as Robertson’s prostitute girlfriend”:

… “Beatrice Kay as his surrogate mother (who is incapable of bearing kids of her own, so collects dolls)”:

… “and Richard Rust as a hit man.”

This long-con revenge tale — while morally challenging — remains well worth a look by film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Cliff Robertson as Tolly
  • Excellent supporting performances

  • Highly atmospheric cinematography
  • Typically solid direction by Fuller

Must See?
Yes, as another powerful and unique film by Fuller.

Categories

  • Good Show
  • Important Director

Links:

Devi (1960)

Devi (1960)

“In my old age, I’ve found a new mother — by the grace of the Goddess, of course.”

Synopsis:
A young woman (Sarmila Tagore) whose father-in-law (Chhabi Biswas) believes she is an incarnation of the goddess Kali sends for her husband (Soumitra Chatterjee) to return home from his studies — but will Chatterjee be able to stop the process of deification that’s been put into motion before someone is hurt?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Indian Films
  • Religious Faith
  • Satyajit Ray Films

Review:
This follow up to Satyajit Ray’s The World of Apu (1959) featured the same young actors (Chatterjee and Tagore) playing a newly married couple once again — but in this case, the narrative (based on a story by Prabhat Kumar Mukhopadhyay) heads in a uniquely spiritual direction. “Devi” translates to “goddess,” which is what Tagore’s deluded father-in-law insists she has become simply because of a dream he’s had (and his belief in the veracity of his own faith):

Given power and gender dynamics in their household — Biswas is an older male with all the money; Chatterjee has gone off to school, leaving Tagore to fend for herself — Tagore is powerless to do anything but accept her new designation and ask for her husband to be sent for. We see numerous shots of her luminous face trembling with fear and uncertainty as she’s put on a pedestal and worshipped:

We also see her justifiably perturbed sister-in-law (played by Karuna Bannerjee from the Apu trilogy) wondering what in the world is happening in their household; the eventual involvement of Banerjee’s young son Khoka (Arpan Chowdhury) in Tagore’s trajectory becomes a pivotal turning point in the storyline.

As in other stories about “faith healers,” we’re shown the near-instantaneous impact on communities when they hear about a figure who might save them or their loved one from death or illness. The desire to believe — whether through Christianity, Hinduism, or another faith entirely — is powerful enough to drive people many miles.

This disturbing tale is a fine follow-up to Ray’s masterful trilogy about Apu, and should be seen by all film fanatics.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Sarmila Tagore as Doya
  • Soumitra Chatterjee as Uma
  • Chhabi Biswas as Kalikinkar Roy
  • A powerful portrait of religious fanaticism
  • Atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a good show by a master director. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Foreign Gem
  • Important Director

Links:

Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (1961)

Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (1961)

“The wild dreams of today are the practical realities of tomorrow.”

Synopsis:
When the admiral (Walter Pidgeon) of a U.S. naval submarine known as the Seaview learns that the Van Allen radiation belts have caused an Earth-destroying fire, he heads with his crew — including his captain (Robert Sterling), his trusty commodore (Peter Lorre), and a scientist (Joan Fontaine) studying stress — to seek permission from the U.N. science chief (Henry Daniell) to blast a nuclear missile at the belts; but when Daniell says no, Admiral Nelson (Pidgeon) proceeds with his plans anyway, leading Sterling and Fontaine to wonder if he may be suffering from a psychological breakdown.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • At Sea
  • Disaster Flicks
  • Henry Daniell Films
  • Joan Fontaine Films
  • Nuclear Threat
  • Peter Lorre Films
  • Science Fiction
  • Submarines
  • Walter Pidgeon Films

Review:
Irwin Allen (the “Master of Disaster”) is perhaps best known by film fanatics for producing The Poseidon Adventure (1972) and The Towering Inferno (1974) — though he did actually direct a few titles as well, including the Oscar-winning documentary The Sea Around Us (1953) (not listed in GFTFF), the notoriously awful “historical drama” The Story of Mankind (1957), The Lost World (1960), The Swarm (1978), and this Fox CinemaScope production featuring a never-ending series of (what else?) calamities.

Even for a relatively uninformed viewer like myself, it’s obvious that the “science” behind just about every plot element in this film is nonsensical, leading one to focus instead on the visuals (Winton Hoch’s cinematography is beautiful):

… the reasonable special effects:

… the corny dialogue (“This ‘toy’ of mine is a demanding lady”), and the overly earnest performances by a cast of Big Names:

Poor Lorre is relegated to an initial scene showing him “walking” a (plastic) shark:

… and then otherwise simply lurks around the set looking supremely glum.

Meanwhile, Fontaine has primarily one (concerned) expression on her face throughout the entire film:

… while Daniell is given exactly one scene:

… and Barbara Eden’s sexy lieutenant is stuck trying to keep things hot with her fiance (Sterling):

… while mediating his increasing distrust of Pidgeon. Watch for Frankie Avalon (who sings the title song) in a bit role as a music-loving lieutenant:

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine widescreen cinematography

Must See?
Nope; you can skip this one.

Links:

Lady With the Dog, The (1960)

Lady With the Dog, The (1960)

“It’s wrong. You’ll be the first not to respect me now.”

Synopsis:
In turn-of-the-century Russia, a married father (Aleksey Batalov) has an affair in Yalta with a newlywed young woman (Iya Savvina) who is equally unhappy in her marriage — but do the lovers have any chance of a life together?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Infidelity
  • Russian Films
  • Star-Crossed Lovers

Review:
This adaptation of Anton Chekhov’s 1899 short story — helmed by Soviet director Iosif Kheifits (also known by the alternate spellings of Jossif Cheifiz, Yossif Cheifiz, Iosif Heifits, Josef Heifitz, Josif Hejfits, and I. Kheyfits) — tells a straightforward, beautifully shot tale of married lovers who don’t really have a chance at long-term happiness. Without having read Chekhov’s original story (or at least not in many years), I struggled to engage on a meaningful level with either of these protagonists, and found myself wondering what was going on in their minds as we see them clearly deeply reflecting on… something:

While Savvina is certainly beautiful to look at:

… and the couple’s time together is spent in gorgeous locales:

… there doesn’t really seem to be anywhere for this doomed tale to go.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Fine cinematography and sets

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a one-time look if you’re a fan of the short story.

Links:

Fillmore (1972)

Fillmore (1972)

“We have not sold any tickets on the basis of Santana.”

Synopsis:
Concert promoter Bill Graham manages five final performances by various musical bands at the Fillmore West auditorium in San Francisco as it’s about to close in 1971.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Concert Films
  • Documentary
  • Rock ‘n’ Roll

Review:
This documentary about the final performances given at the Fillmore West auditorium in San Francisco is widely considered a downer given over-inclusion of footage showing promoter Bill Graham acting about as obnoxious as possible. While learning about his traumatic past as an orphan fleeing from Nazi Germany helps us have some insight into why he acts the way he does, it’s still unpleasant seeing him at work.

On the plus side, of course, are the performances, filmed in just 16 millimeter but creatively edited here using split screen and double exposure.

Fans of any of the bands on stage — including Quicksilver Messenger Service, New Riders of the Purple Sage, Jefferson Airplane, The Grateful Dead, and (infamously) Santana — will certainly want to check this one out, but it’s in no way must-see viewing for others.

Favorite random scene: A man (musician?) in a cowboy hat reassures a young girl with all sincerity that he may not be able to get her a pink balloon to play with, but will try his best to get her a balloon.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Creative use of split screen cinematography

Must See?
No; you can skip this one unless you’re curious.

Links:

Reflection: Reviews Through the 1950s

Reflection: Reviews Through the 1950s

Hello, fellow film fanatics!

I’m getting close enough to the completion of this massive reviewing project that I’ve headed into a kind of chronological finish-line: as of today, I’ve reviewed every title listed in Guide For the Film Fanatic released before 1960. Click here and you’ll see.

(For those keeping track, I’ve reviewed 3,306 titles in total from the book, with only 994 left to go. Wow – less than 1,000! Another significant milestone.)

It seems fitting to write a brief note saying goodbye (for now) to the cinema of the first half+ of the 20th century — though of course, it bears emphasizing that as comprehensive as Peary’s book is, it’s far from complete in terms of listing EVERY noteworthy or must-see film. That is, there are gaps. Over the years, I’ve occasionally published reviews of what I perceive to be “Missing Titles” but more recently have once again focused on titles in GFTFF simply to keep making progress.

With that caveat in mind, what are my thoughts on “must see” cinema from the 1910s to the 1950s, now that I’ve reviewed all those titles from Peary’s book? I’ll focus this post on the 1950s, and save my thoughts on silent cinema (as well as movies from the 1930s and 1940s) for another time.

Note: Some of my insights below might seem fairly obvious to anyone interested in the history of cinema, but I’ll share them anyway just to document what’s stood out to me in my most recent months of watching, reviewing, and finishing up The List.

Takeaway One: Expansion of World Cinema
As filmmaking progressed over the decades, particularly into the 1950s, an increasing number of movies from across the globe were released (and now, of course, we have access to even more titles through digital platforms). By looking at my list of the “Foreign Films” listed in GFTFF, we can see that some countries and continents — i.e., Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and South America, to name just a few — seem to have had their filmic renaissance in later years, while others (i.e., China and most African nations) remain severely under-represented overall (at least in Peary’s book). (Of course, there are complex socio-political reasons behind this, which I won’t get into here — I’m just pointing out the obvious.)

Highlights and/or notable trends from foreign films in the 1950s include the beginning of significant works from Ingmar Bergman; just a few titles from the Eastern bloc (albeit lovely and provocative ones); many beautifully shot films from Japan (including several solid classics from Akira Kurosawa); a distinct lack of post-WWII German titles; plenty of diverse and engaging French films; the rise of Fellini in Italy; and Satyajit Ray’s incomparable “Apu Trilogy” from India.

Takeaway Two: Visual Innovations
As we all know, screens got bigger — much bigger — during the 1950s (for a variety of reasons). While I was finishing up my reviews of ’50s titles in GFTFF, I was struck by the difference this format made for so many (though not all) movies. VistaVision had its heyday, CinemaScope came and (mostly) went, and other technologies were experimented with. My understanding of the “how” behind the glorious images we see on the screen is limited to what I learn by reading and watching “extras” (I’m an art lover, not a techie); but I do take note when it’s obvious that a wider screen is impacting our ability to appreciate what we’re seeing, either more or differently.

For instance, I was disappointed by what seemed to be a lack of widescreen innovation in Otto Preminger’s hard-to-find Porgy and Bess (1959) (though we’ll have to wait until a restoration is finally completed to see for sure). However, I’ve been blown away by so many other recently restored widescreen titles, in which it’s obvious how well-planned and well-utilized the massive screen space was. Even films I’m not particularly enamored with — i.e., King Vidor’s epic War and Peace (1956) — remain a vision to behold.

As a side note, this is a fabulous time to be a film fanatic. When I started this project 16 years ago, I was watching some utterly crappy bootleg copies of titles which have since been completely revitalized… I’ve become wonderfully spoiled, and am still in the process of replacing older stills in my earlier reviews with newer, better ones.

Takeaway Three: Sadly, History Repeats Itself
It’s been particularly distressing in recent months to revisit films made during or just after World War II, and see how much of what we thought was simply hideous history once again haunting our daily lives.

Fascism is back in full force, Cold War tensions remain ever-present, and… people treat each other in atrocious ways. War abides. Will that ever go away? It doesn’t seem likely. I’m obviously deeply disappointed that cinematic representation doesn’t cure all ills, but at least — at least — we can (and should) maintain some historically grounded humility in what we’re dealing with, with help from movies.

Final Thoughts
If you’re itching to read more about films from the 1950s, click here for a list of 100 “must see” titles from this decade (most are covered in Peary’s book) — and also be sure to check out Tim Dirks’ comprehensive overview of cinematic trends and influences during the 1950s. He covers teen heart-throbs (Marlon Brando, James, Dean, Elvis Presley) and teen exploitation films; the impact of television on studio production (including epics, 3D, and other widescreen films); big-budget musicals; “intelligent” westerns:

… larger-than-life ’50s icons such as Marilyn Monroe, Doris Day, Audrey Hepburn, and Elizabeth Taylor; Method acting; British influence; anti-Communist sentiment (including Cold-War inspired sci-fi); censorship and social conscience flicks; Godzilla; Jimmy Stewart; auteurs like Alfred Hitchcock, Nicholas Ray, and Douglas Sirk; and more.

That’s it for now. Back to viewing and reviewing! I’m heading forth into the 1960s and beyond

Nazarin (1959)

Nazarin (1959)

“Charity does not degrade the recipient, nor does it affect dignity.”

Synopsis:
A devout priest (Francisco Rabal) in rural Mexico helps support a suicidal young woman (Marga Lopez) and a prostitute (Rita Macedo) who is wanted for mortally wounding one of her colleagues; but as the trio head out on a pilgrimage across the countryside, Father Nazario (Rabal) questions whether his good intentions will make a difference against evil.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Christianity
  • Do-Gooders
  • Historical Drama
  • Luis Buñuel Films
  • Mexico
  • Priests and Ministers
  • Prostitutes and Gigolos

Review:
Based on an 1895 novel by Benito Pérez Galdós — who also wrote the novel upon which Tristana (1970) was based — this Luis Buñuel film was winner of the International Prize at Cannes, and shows clear evidence of many of the director’s most pressing concerns and cinematic interests: religion, morality, hypocrisy — and the role played by doubt. As Bunuel himself said in an interview, “I think doubt is an extraordinary thing. It makes you grow.” In the same interview, he expressed fondness for Father Nazarin as a “really nice guy” who could really be anyone (except, he added drolly, a policeman). Indeed, Rabal’s performance is quite appealing, and we quickly grow to admire this man whose morals truly drive his actions:

Buñuel places Father Nazarin within an appropriately seedy and challenging milieu, one filled with garishly made-up prostitutes (are they covering illness?):

… and sickly citizens in need of care and alms. The primary narrative tension revolves around how Nazarin will respond when the two women he’s helped begin to follow him around as though he’s a modern-day Jesus:

There are a couple of surrealistic touches sprinkled throughout, as well as the inclusion of a midget as a love interest:

… which all add to the sense that one is very much watching a film by Buñuel. While this isn’t must-see, it’s worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Francisco Rabal as Father Nazarin
  • Gabriel Figueroa’s cinematography
  • Several effectively surreal moments

Must See?
No, but it’s well worth a look, and of course must-see for Buñuel fans.

Links:

Music Room, The (1958)

Music Room, The (1958)

“Music — a crazy passion of yours.”

Synopsis:
In 1920s Bengal, an aging feudal landlord (Chhabi Biswas) is cared for by his two loyal servants while resenting the “new wealth” of his money-lending neighbor (Gangapada Basu), and reflecting back on various concerts held in his palatial music room.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Class Relations
  • Flashback Films
  • Indian Films
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Satyajit Ray Films

Review:
Satyajit Ray’s fourth film — made after Aparajito (1956) and before The World of Apu (1959) — was this elegiac tale, based on a short story by Tarasankar Bandyopadhyay, about an aging zamindar (landlord) whose love of classical music overrides all other passions (except, perhaps, smoking from his hookah):

… who is unable to cope with emergent shifts of power and wealth under crumbling British colonial rule in the early 20th century. Ever the disruptor — and largely misunderstood and under-appreciated in his own country — Ray wanted to use music and dance as a logical component of the storyline rather than having them simply burst out of nowhere musical-style; so, this film is essentially a series of realistic music and/or dance performances interspersed with a melancholic storyline which shows how a love of arts and leisure at the expense of all logic can get a nobleman into trouble.

I happen to adore Indian classical music, so was quite engaged by this film — though I can see how its meandering, flashback-filled storyline might not appeal to all tastes. It’s not must-see, but it is one of Ray’s more highly regarded films and thus worth a look.

Notable Performances, Qualities, and Moments:

  • Chhabi Biswas as Biswambhar Roy
  • Subrata Mitra’s cinematography
  • The stunning final kathak dance sequence by Roshan Kumari
  • Vilayat Khan’s score

Must See?
No, but it’s worth a look and of course must-see for fans of Ray’s work. Listed as a film with Historical Relevance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links: