Siddhartha(1972) :: Cinematic depiction of spiritual quest !
Background :
Conrad Rooks had got involved in drugs and had visited France to get rid of his drug addiction. There he got to read the book “Sidhaartha” (written by Nobel Laureate, German author Herman Hess). He was greatly impressed by the book and he developed a wish to make a film on the book. He got the rights of making a film on the book with the help of son of Herman Hess.
Rooks, with his wife, came to Bombay and as everything was falling in place, he met newly married young Shashi Kapoor and his wife Jeniffer Kendel Kapoor, at the hotel “Sun N Sand” in Bombay.
Rooks visited RK studio and met with Raj Kapoor the elder brother of Shashi Kapoor. Rooks was astonished to see the impact of RK on others in the film world. While sitting with RK in his personal chamber in the studio, Rooks saw people coming with suitcases filled with money to request RK to either sign or finish their films. “That’s great”, thought Rooks. “I would make films and live like a Maharaja in India”.
While staying in India, Conrad became associated with Swami Satchiddanand also and he introduced Swami to USA. USA got almost first dose of Yoga and spiritual missions.
Before making Sidhaartha he made a hard hitting Semi Autobiographical Chappaqua(1966) where he showed his own drug withdrawal cure and rehabilitation.
After Chappaqua, Conrad turned his focus and energies towards the making of Sidhaartha.
As he knew Shashi Kapoor, who was a big star at that time and had already done few films with Merchant and Ivory, he signed Shashi Kapoor as his leading man Sidhaartha. His script had scenes dealing with nudity, kissing and lovemaking and these factors were taboo for Indian films. Conrad convinced authorities that film was to be made in English.
He was familiar with the then P.M of India, Indira Gandhi and her son Rajiv Gandhi. He convinced Indira Gandhi that film was to be made mainly for American audience and through this film Americans would get to know more about India. Visionary Indira Gandhi understood the PR impact of the film and he was given the green signal but when he came to India with his foreign technical crew and reached to Delhi, Indo-Pak war had been started and he was not able to start the shooting. But film was to be made and a man introduced him to the king of Bharatpur estate, who allowed him to use his palace and private land to shoot most parts of the film.
Film : Synopsis:
“It’s a story of the spiritual search of Sidhaartha, the son of a rich Brahmin. Sidhaartha forces his father to allow him to go to the forest to become a monk to search the truth or meaning of life or to get enlightenment. His friend Govinda also accompanies him. They both first join a group of dwelling monks and do all kinds of Yoga, meditations etc but Sidhaartha find all these efforts as futile and soon he decides to leave the monks. Govinda hears about Gautam Budha and he takes Sidhartha along with him to attend Budha’s discourses. Govinda is mesmerised by the Budha’s sermon and decides to join Budha’s group but Sidhaartha is not interested in joining anybody as his teacher and he wished to search truth himself. Sidhaartha leaves Govinda and goes alone. He meets a courtesan Kamala and is fascinated by her beauty.
He goes under impulsion and goes to Kamala and says that he has come to learn art of love from her. She helps him to find a job with a rich Merchant Kamaswami. Sidhaartha starts earning money. Kamala falls in love with Sidhaartha.
Sidhaartha becomes rich and starts living a life full of luxury. He starts playing gambling also but deep inside he is still a seeker and soon he becomes fed up with everything. One day he leaves Kamala, who is pregnant, and goes to forest where near the river he meets with a ferryman who had brought him across the same river few years ago. Sidhaartha requests Ferryman to keep him as his assistant.
After some years, people are going to see Budha who is about to leave his physical body. Kamala, with her son, also is going to see Budha. But at the bank of river, a snake bites her and ferryman brings her to his hut. Sidhaartha sees and recognizes her. She dies and Sidhaartha comes again under with his son. His son does not show any attachment with his father and often insults him and finally leaves the place. Sidhaartha is sad but soon he understands that when he had left his father’s place and lived life on his own terms then his son too will learn the life. He makes himself free from any worry about his son.
Soon Ferry man also leaves him and he alone lives at the bank of river and helps people going across the river.
Years later, he is an old man now, his old friend Govinda, comes there and Sidhaartha recognizes him. Govinda is still searching the truth. He is disturbed and asks Sidhaartha,” Sidhaartha my friend, please tell me also about the truth. Tell me in a simple way so that I also can understand. My search is difficult and it seems never ending. How I will finish my search?
Sidhaartha says,” stop searching. Be in Love”
He asks Govinda to live with him and become a ferryman like him. “
Book and the film :
Though film is based on the book “Sidhaartha” but at various places Conrad Rook’s screen play shows a departure from the book. He was making a 90 minute film so he had to leave many scenes described in the book. Sometimes it looks that he was following the book religiously and sometimes he just jumped and mixed many scenes and reduced them to a single scene. Departure from the book is obvious also because film can’t be read. It has to be seen and thus it requires more dialogues than the book. Film has to find the way to show the philosophical and psychological journey/progress of the characters in a visual way. At times it is clear that book and film, both have left something important but that’s understood. Being Indian we know certain things which are difficult for a foreigner to grasp. Herman Hess stayed in India for 3-4 months only before writing his book and though Conrad Rooks had spent many years in India but still we know he messed certain aspects of Indian spirituality.
Perhaps he had this impression that larger section of the audience might have already read the book. Or it was lacking of the editor who chopped off some scenes in the very beginning of the film and audience got no clue why Sidhaartha’s father was saying those dialogues to his son. Sidhartha’s wriggle to go to forest to become a monk, is not established in the film as it’s described in the book. This kind of few inconsistent scenes are there in the film.
Often Conrad Rooks, has depicted scenes in his own way. When after living years of a luxurious life Sidhaartha becomes fed up and comes to bank of river with his disillusioned state of mind he is shown to dive into the river. In the book this is a thought which Sidhaartha got while watching the flowing water of the river. Director made it as a real event and this scene works better than the book.
Locations:
It’s very difficult to shoot for a film like Sidhaartha because it’s very hard to find the places where modern establishments are not present. Perhaps Conrad was lucky in that way that Rishikesh was not over populated and it still was devoid of the big advertisement hoardings and places at the bank of the Holy river Ganga were able to give an illusion about places where era could not be defined.
He got the palace of Bharatpur’s King and private land and forest to shoot and thus he could bring that effect in his film where story could be defined in any era. It’s not an era based film and before the arrival of “Gautama Budha” in the film, audience don’t get a clue that it’s the story of Budha’s time.
Cinematography:
Conrad hired Sven Nykvist as cinematographer. Since 1953 Sven had been working with Ingmar Bergman. Sven was celebrated as a great cinematographer all over the world but perhaps Sidhaartha was his first effort with colours and in colours also he does wonder with natural light. Never we have found India looking so beautiful on screen. Since the first scene, where Donkeys are shown, camera works in tandem with the mood of the film and sometimes even brings new meanings in the narration.
Editing:
As book is divided into many chapters and reader knows what’s happening in different parts of life of Sidhartha, film’s editing missed this demarcation of chapters. Film flows continuously while it needed some restive points to differentiate between the phases of Sidhaartha’s life. Scenes covering, Sidhartha’s involvement with materialistic and lustful life, His reunion with Ferryman and living with him thereafter, the news of Budha’s salvation day, Ferryman’s departure, Sidhaartha’s reunion with his old friend, Govinda, these different incidences happened during different time periods deserved better editing which could bring a clear differentiation.
Editing could have been better to bring more substance in the flow of narration.
Actors:
Director was not experienced director of many films and yet actors display good performances especially Shashi Kapoor and Simi Grewal.
Sidhaartha : Shashi Kapoor plays the “Sidhaartha”. Except minor weaknesses in few scenes Shashi Kapoor does full justice to the role. Role is quite difficult to play as such roles often fall in the trap of stereotype. As an actor he is simply brilliant at some places. Like in the scenes, whenever he says “I can think, I can wait, I can fast” with full determination in his eyes and on his face. When he walks, after leaving Govinda with Budha’s group, he enjoys his freedom from any kind of relationship and his body language is fantastic to show these free spirited feelings. He jumps and screams,” I am awakened today, I have been born today”.
He plays an aging man quite well. His transition in different phases of life of Sidhaartha is smooth. He carries very easily the different shades of his character. He is energetic in the role of a young seeker and he shows his arrogance quite well when he defies any teacher and master on his path of searching the truth. He is good in the phase when he is involved in the loving relationship with the Kamala. He shows ruthless and careless behaviour when he is living life of a man seized inside thecage of richness and luxuries. He is able to portray agonies and worries of a father. His body language is transformed as an old man. His makeup of an old man is not very good but as an old man he acts well and brings necessary changes in his voice also as if he has lost some of his teeth.
It’s a pleasure to see Shashi Kapoor in the role of Sidhaartha. In those years nobody could fit in this role. Though if the film was made in the period of 1976-78 then perhaps Vinod Khanna could have played this role with a wonderful intensity. Reason is quite obvious because he lived a life similar to Sidhaartha in his real life. While it was a role for Shashi Kapoor, Vinod Khanna could have given his soul to this role. (But that’s a personal wish).
Kamala: Simi Grewal appears in the film, all of sudden and she appears as “Kamala”. She is not replaceable in this film. Apart from the fact that she became ready to do scenes showing kissing, nudity and love making, she looked beautiful and acted beautifully in role of Kamala the courtesan.
With this film, one can feel that she is an actress who has been almost wasted in hindi films. She deserved more and far better roles than she has been getting here.
Shashi Kapoor did many films in English and perhaps Simi could also have done better in English films. She had everything what a mature actress needed and perhaps Hindi film scenario was not matured enough to exploit her kind of talent. She is effortless in speaking her dialogues as a civilized rich courtesan. Nobody made hindi or English film based on Tamil love story, Shillapdikaram, else Simi was the perfect choice for the role of Madhavi. She could have done wonder in that role. She is quite active and film makers should use the talent of this actress. At her age now she can do what Jeniffer Kendel did in 36 Chaurangee Lane.
Govinda: Romesh Sharma is also good in the role of the friend of Sidhaaartha who always followed his friend. During youth, he brings innocence of his character on screen. This was his first film as an actor and he was fairly good in his first film.
Ferryman: Zul Vellani is quite good in this role and it’s difficult to accept that this actor did not get roles in hindi films.
Kamaswami: Pinchoo Kapoor plays Kamaswami without any difficulty. He has been habitual to play the roles of rich man. Only he was not a modern rich man here.
Sidhartha’s father : Amrik Singh is average.
And was it needed to show Sidhaartha’s mother only in one scene?
Sidhaartha’s son: Shashi Kapoor’s real life son Kunal Kapoor plays this role and he was fantastic. What happened to him when he grew up? He is so good in this role. Child artists are not often seen in the roles where they have to show anger but this child actor displayed anger quite well. This actor after doing noticeable roles in Vijeta, Utsav and Trikaal disappeared from the screen!
Kissing, Nudity and love making scenes:
Shashi Kapoor and Simi Grewal had not done kissing or love making scenes before and nudity was also a beyond imagination fact then. Their conversation just before the first love making is shot very beautifully. Both the actors display the traits of their respective characters very well.
The looks on the face of Shashi Kapoor after his first love making, can be little debatable. Perhaps Director wished those awkward looks on his face as this was Siddhartha’s first ever sexual orgasmic experience.
Simi’s dialogues said in whisper add much impact in the scene. She displays the confidence of her character, which is well versed in the art of love making. Conrad handled erotic factor very well.
Director’s vision :
Conrad did a good job though this film. Film has flaws but it was first attempt of its kind. He himself was into the spiritual search and he had spent few years in India so he had developed a vision about his film. He was sure that Herman Hess had left some gaps and thus he tried to deviate from the book at so many places in the film. Though he also made a blunder, which he might have done out of enthusiasm, but over all he made a film which works in spite of its flaws. It’s a reference film.
And if it does not like a blasphemy to say then film is important and a cult classic because it has flaws. Its flaws make it a devoted film to a special subject. On interpretation, film’s flaws work in favour of the subject of the film. Film is dealing with the spirituality, a book and a man’s spiritual quest and a film can’t tell in definite terms about the truth. Audience keep hope that at the end they would get a definite answer but if they would have got then film could have become completely a weak film. Film’s weaknesses are its strength also. It shows the journey of Sidhaartha and the beauty lies in the fact that Sidhaartha is other name of Gautam Budha rather his name before he attained enlightenment. Sidhaartha meets with Budha and defies his teaching. He does not wish to appoint him as his teacher. Sidhaartha thinks that what Budha has attained he never can teach that particular thing to anyone. It is too personal an achievement. Sidhaartha has courage to go on the search alone and film shows his journey.
Sidhartha’s interaction with Budha is interesting. Budha sees the clever mind of Sidhaartha and he cautions him against the cleverness of mind while going on a spiritual journey but arrogant Sidhaartha is adamant to pursue what he thinks is right at that time.
That way he wastes many years of his life and ultimately he accepts later what he had defied earlier. When he is disappointed completely with his own search and becomes helpless only then he accepts wisdom of Ferryman. Who is not well educated like Budha but he also has attained the enlightenment.
Sidhartha’s ego was perhaps not able to allow him to become a disciple of anyone. In ferryman, he sees a friend, philosopher and guide and ultimately he also opts his ways and he also gets quenching of his quest.
But was he devoid of emotions? Till he is filled with words only he thinks he has got wisdom and peace but in reality it’s not true. When Kamala dies he does not feel sad and even says why he should be affected with sadness. But when his son goes away he is again sad like an ordinary man. He even cries.
Through direct confrontations with the life he realizes his Truth.
Conrad is able to convey this all through his vision of the character Sidhaartha. Shashi Kapoor helps him completely through his performance.
As Conrad had closely seen India and therefore he had an understanding about India and her traditions. He had a great observation also. Instead of using actors he had used real monks.
Director and Music:
Conrad got familiar with 9 monks, who used to travel around western UP (North India) and only one monk could see a little otherwise they all were blind. Director used them and their singing of devotional songs in the film as such and this adds much value to his film. Once coming in to the grip of those small devotional songs sung by blind monks one may find himself highly attached with those songs. They have magical impact.
Director had used Pt Ravi Shankar’s music in his first film. He got familiar with Ravindra Sangeet also (Music created by Tagore) and he signed Hemant Kumar as music composer for this film. Hemant Kumar did wonderful job and it’s a pleasure to hear both the Bengali songs and background music of the film.
Sadly they never released the sound track of this film. Though Hemant Kumar had used same tune for a song in Anupama (a Hindi film by Hrishikesh Mukherjee) before also.
This music suggests that language is never a problem as far as music is concerned. One knows Bengali or not but both the songs will take one deeply into their magic.
* * * *
It’s not only a different film but it can safely be said about “Sidhaarth” that there is only one “Sidhaarth”. With all its weaknesses it’s a beautiful film. Once addicted to its watching one may end up watching it several times. Its weaknesses teach what not to do while dealing with such a film. Film’s budget was a constraint and in spite of that factor it’s a beautifully made film.
This unique film deserves to be included in the personal collection of any cinema lover.
* * * *
Presently, Conrad Rooks lives in seclusion somewhere in South Asia and is working on his autobiography. We know more about his wife Pamela Rooks who made the film “Train To Pakistan” based on the novel written by Khushwant Singh with same title.
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
It was classy film, got a chance to watch this film last year at “Osian film festival”.New Delhi. where shashi kapoor and Simi gerewal present for its first ever public screening in India, Auditorium was full and film got standing oviation…Everone was so mesmerize by beauty
atray:
Ya its a classy film. Many factors associated with the film deserve high praises.
“I can think, I can wait , I can fast ”
Thats the essense of the film and thus life rather life of a seeker walking on spiritual path.
Think – Consciousness is alert, Vivek jagrat avastha mein hai
Wait – Is not fighting against the nature’s will and has capacity to wait without any disturbance till things become favourable or clear
Fast – has control over hunger. will not go for stealing and corrupt means so that soul could be covered with the dirt and thus no guilt and self pity which takes man in pathetic conditions.
Sidhaartha was not released in India. But it has always been available on VHS since years. After watching “New Delhi Times” I had seen Sidhaartha, perhaps one week after and it was Shashi Kapoor all over for months.
Hey RK, great post ya. but its bit lonnnng. hav been looking for the dvd since a long time. n 2 be honest,it ws during school days, once we got to know about this film and was intertsed to c it bcz everyone talked about its lovemaking scnes. but never manged to catch it. sex n philosophy….no doubt its great combo for cocktail.
The essence of the book was the spiritual yatra of a human being who knows that there is oneness in everything, but has to struggle with the manies to realize the one.
Personally, I felt very disappointed with the screenplay and the unnatural performances. It was evident that the actors were speaking in a language they were not comfortable with.
If you liked this movie, you’ll love the book. If you’ve read the book, please don’t watch the movie!
Phoenixnu: ya too long. But I know so many things remained untouched. no doubt nudity factor may attract audience to watch it. But its not abt that. Thats a restive point in the story, because Sidhaartha, ignores the prevalent tradition of Hindu Dharma and wishes to become monk at the age around 25 which was the age for marrying. He listens to his desires only. When he wishes to become monk he leaves common world and when he wishes to know whats love he approaches the courtesan.
For the film, love nudity etc work in same way as they work for any book and art form. And nobody can attain any spirituality without confronting the physical desire factor. Thats why Osho Rajneesh gave the name to his most famous book
“From sex to superconmsciosuness”. Those who are not seeker word Sex attracts but after going through the book one is not same towards sex.same is with Sidhaartha.
those factors attract audience but then film takes them to deeper level.
ashima: sorry to disagree.thats a danger with any film based on a highly successful book. Sidhaartha the film is better than the book at some places and is weaker than the book at some place. Philosophical thoughts cant be shown in the film as they can be described in the book.
your POV abt Performances also does not seem to be fit. Performances are not unnatural. If you can recall only one scene will suggest you the command on the performance. Sidhaartha and Govinda are listening first time the doscourse of Gautam Budha. and see the difference in their facial expressions, the expressions in their eyes. Govinda is mesmerised, because he is easily influenced but Sidhaartha’s eyes are full of questions, his face is telling he is not accepting everything Budha is saying. That scene is 100/100 yb any angle. Camera work, direction and performances.
Actors speak in that language they are not comfortable with !!!
Whats that? you mean english language or philosophical language?
their dialogue delivery in english is fine and they speak dialogues in good way.
Conrad Rooks was not an aged man when he conceptualised the film. he was not an experienced Director and yet he made a beautiful film.
Those who understand the book would understand the film also and vice versa. Its not abt the liking but understanding.
Book Vs film is a sensitive issue. Point in case “Namesake”, many scenes described in the book were difficult to be kept in the film in same way. means they cant leave same impression., for example. Ashima is attracted by the shoes. whats described in the book could not be shown in filmin same manner but then like Sidhaartha the film, Namesake the film is better than the book Namesake at several places.
Authors and directors have different understanding about the things they wish to convey.
Coming back to Sidhaartha the book and film, whatever one likes may always go for another medium as both brings satisfaction of coming across a good art form.:)
RK:
On the language comment, I just meant that the actors seemed too conscious of the fact that they were speaking in a language not native to them.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your pov. I guess, a book is an experience, just like the movie. When I read the book, I felt I was Siddhartha. And when I saw the movie, I couldn’t connect. Maybe, my expectations were too high
Ashima:
Thanks for your comments.
Re: Language-
Simi Garewal spent her childhood in England and got education there. we can see her comfort with the language through her show Rendezvous. Shashi Kapoor was masters in English and he has done many English films and he had background of doing english theatre. The guy whoever dubbed for the hidden character of Budha spoke so nice dialogues. Zul Vellani spoke his dialogues with fine command over the language. Romesh Sharma was equally good. Who remained then in main cast? Pinchoo Kapoor had small role and he spke well. Child Kunal Kapoor was wonderful. I am not sure if they were conscious of the factor that they were speaking dialogues in English which was not their mother tongue. On the contrary these and many actors can speak impeccable english and may have less command on Hindi. Because most of them are educated through convent medium.
If you really compare the book with the film then you will find that Conrad Rooks did intelligent thing when he left almost all the esoteric descriptions given in the book ( when Sidhhartha was following Shamanas and was indulged in learning leaving his body or walking on water etc). Hermanm Hess certainly missed few points which Conrad Rooks could see in depth. Film is complementary to the book.
Book was written mainly for the German readers.
Director had made film for American audience but film had appealed more to the Indian audience. Thats a success of Director. Because the philosophy covered by Herman Hess one can find in countless books published in India but we cant find a single film which matches with Conard’s film (in that spiritual area). We have to understand this factor. A book can describe unexplained things but film cant show it and with these limitations Conrad’s pioneering work is praiseworthy.:)
Siddhartha – book and film were so good. In last 10 days I read hermann hess book – siddharthaa ..and saw this film of rooks. Enjoyed both the mediums. Superb cinematography in the film and shooting at natural and outdoor places create pretty sceneries…
@Krishna,
Thanks for your comment. Cinematography department of Sidhaartha, feasts one’s eyes. Having seen few places, where shooting was done, this pleasure of watching them unpolluted and with their whole purity level on screen, increases the joy manifold. Natural light has been used so effectively and forest, Ganga etc all look completely alive on screen.