Duvidha (1973) Poster

(1973)

User Reviews

Review this title
6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Art House with a capital A.
MOscarbradley16 July 2020
Mani Kaul was one of India's most important directors of 'art-house' cinema but his work is not really well known here in the West. "Duvidha" was his first film in colour and it's a strange, slow picture that should remind you of the work of the Georgian director Sergei Parajanov. It's a ghost story but not in any conventional sense. A young bridegroom has to leave his wife for business reasons and while he's away a ghost appears, takes the form of the husband and impregnates the wife; then the husband returns. It's as simple as that.

Of course, the narrative in this case hardly matters. Kaul tells his 'story' in purely visual terms, in images that are often no more than stills. It's certainly beautiful to look at but the funereal pace is bound to alienate most people. This is Art-House with a capital A and a capital H. Kaul's direction is fine but the amateurish performances of the mostly non-professional cast drag the film down.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Interesting.
riddhimaakaritu2 September 2020
First sentence of the film and I am like - "Is it the original Paheli?"

Turns out both are based on same folklore.

This one is very simple, the relationships established are not very believable & have very less dialogues. Whereas Paheli is far more visually stunning, you get invested in their relationship & have amazing songs.

So if anyone want to watch the folklore I will suggest Paheli over Duvidha without any doubt. :D
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Genius In The Hinterlands
uprashanthnayak1 February 2017
Directed by the uniquely talented Mani Kaul, 'Duvidha' is a cine- story about a young couple marooned in the hinterlands of Rajasthan. Rajasthan is famous for its forts and palaces - but we don't see any of that here , in fact we see very less of the outdoors.The action lingers on, in an old white-washed house which cages a young lady (enacted by Raisa Padamsee). Even inside the house, we don't see much of her, swathed as her body is in a sari that is perpetually draped over her head. It's an orthodox household, made worse by the fact that this newly arrived bride is virtually abandoned by her useless young husband. Acceding to an auspicious time-period that mandates him to leave right then to a distant land to trade and make money for five years, he drily consoles his wife that once he returns after five years , they can have all the time and intimacy in the world to themselves.

He's soon gone, but a ghost mimicking him to the fullest, takes his place by fooling the family with a seemingly convincing story. But it tells the young bride the truth. Will she accept this ghost as the perfect physical and mental impersonator of her husband for the next five years ?

One suspects that even if Kaul had directed the same script with a conventional narration, he would have made an interesting picture for the full extent of its crisp 84 minute runtime. But then it might not have made the film uniquely memorable. So he would have thought - what techniques can I use to jazz up this narrative ? How can I do this without boring even the discerning viewer out of her or his skull?

Of all the films I've seen, no other picture comes closer to simulating the effect of reading a comic book (a serious one) and watching a movie at the same time. Kaul subtly detaches video from audio almost always - the characters speak, but the dubbing is purposely left a little desynchronized while the voices are projected a little louder. There are no whispers or any barely audible talk in this movie. The camera, though very careful in aesthetics, is mofussil in its images with high-resolution pictures deliberately unreached for, and that coupled with the speech-bubble- like talk, heightens the illusion of perusing a work of graphic illustrations. Every sentence, with the requisite modulation of course, is like a declarative one. Irony abounds, the magical reality of folklore is tacitly accepted while chaste Sanskrit- centric Hindi is rich in redolence.

Sometimes whilst the dialogues carry on, Kaul shows a static frame, and then switches to another. All this is done so artfully that it does not come across as gimmicky or disconnected - rather the images and the audio each register with crystalline impact. In an early scene of the ladies welcoming the young marital pair, we see a high overhead shot and then realize it is the best and the most vivid angle for covering the colourful different saris of the ladies all closely grouped together.

There's a sequence of the un-named young bride enjoying a ride in a swing outside. But then she doesn't seem to be really enjoying it - the pallu of the sari covers her head like a dark funeral-sheet and her head leans sideways in dolor. The scene, coming nine years after a similar much more famous one, is a clear nod to Satyajit Ray's Charulata but Kaul shows, a short while later, another gesture in his doff of hat, when the angle of camera asks whether this woman on the swing is being hanged to death.

As for the performances , their backbone is good, but finer nuances are obviated by Kaul's Bressonic approach where the actors are only required to be vessels at most, to convey the directorial plan.

Folk vocals and local instruments are employed in inspired fashion to lend bracing underlines and mystic undertows. The tone of the commentaries in the film is equally riveting. Female or male, the dialogue sparkles with native purity and emotional perpicacity. The girl's voice, virginal in its innocence and plain texture, has less screen-time but is given a cutting little soliloquy where she says " In the eyes of parents , a heap of rubbish takes more time to grow than the body their daughter ; I was barely sixteen when they began worrying about giving me away in marriage. I was able to flourish in my mother's womb but not in my father's courtyard".

The young male voice-over is utterly riveting the more one listens to it - please forgive the chauvinism in this as it is put to wonderfully quiet service - not cloying but utterly ironic - in honour of the martyred female's plight. The tone in this voice-over is gloriously inscrutable, as though it had died, and is now re-born and has remained young but omniscient, much wiser, a ghost virtually, but with the poignancy brimming over its seemingly nonchalant tone. Elocuting in splendidly pure Hindi, its achieves its finest moment when it soliloquizes on the bride holding her baby and climbing up the stairs to her husband awaiting in "sweet expectation" in the aftermath of an incident.

By its beautifully subtle depiction of how a society treats its women and by its invigorating take on cinema itself, 'Duvidha' sculpts a compact but unshakeable landmark, not just in the Indian pantheon but also in world cinema. ***** More such @ Upnworld
14 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Blown Away
sanskarabsent10 May 2021
The storytelling is very modern, it looks beautiful, not many people know about this movie because people don't appreciate old movies which are actually very interesting and stay with them.

This movie is not for the ones who like to choke on web-series and pathetic flashy item song filled movies, this is a truly remarkable movie and has definitely inspired me to tell stories.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Sometimes slow paced is simply boring
orangelifer4 June 2022
Warning: Spoilers
The opening shots are lovely, and as I enjoy older films,particularly outside of the mainstream, I had hopes I'd enjoy this. I did not. It honestly might be the most boring film that I managed to see through to the end. The pace is slow. Very,very slow. And basically nothing happens. I did not want a fast paced thriller nor did I expect any eroticism. But I had hoped to see the characters do something. Anything really. Some might enjoy this film as a visual poem. I admit, I don't have the patience for it. If I had seen the two characters who are in love interact with each other,I would have felt something. Without that,this film just seems emotionless. Also,I just didn't understand some of the film,which is due, at least in part, to my ignorance of Indian culture. The ending in particular confounded me. *Spoilers* I had assumed the ghost had won the contest but instead he was trapped in a bag and the human husband returned home with arrogance. Later I realized asking one of the men to enter the bag was I guess a trick to see who the ghost was because a human could not really fit inside it but at first I was surprised it was the ghost in the bag because the trapped ghost's begging seemed more typical of the husband. Also, a ghost should be able to get out of a leather bag...it's a ghost afterall. So I figured if indeed it was the ghost in the bag, it should be able to find a way back to its lover. Nope. I thought perhaps the wife would "join" the ghost in some otherworld. Nope. The movie ends solemnly with the wife sadly resigned to duty, alive but feeling dead. What is the point? I'm not saying I thought there would be a Hollywood happy ending. But really, what is the point? I learned afterwards of a newer film "Paheli" based on the same story. After reading the plot,I see the ending of the newer film is much closer to what I expected for this one.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Pretentious tripe Warning: Spoilers
Treated as art, this is such a pathetic turkey. No characters, no acting, story is almost non-existent.

Let's start with the most basic thing i.e, the characters. The characters are given no screen time. I can't care less about any of the characters. There are hardly four or five scenes where they have some dialogue(And this is not a silent film).

We are not shown if the bride actually loves the ghost. They hardly share three or four scenes between them.

Most of the time, the camera focuses on useless things. A sunset scene almost a minute long. There are shots of empty walls as well. Don't know why. Brides face is shown many times, but mostly covered by veil.

I have seen many exorcism scenes in films but that including a shephard in this film is worst of all, devoid of any logic.

The scenes where people actually speak felt like someone else is narrating the story for them. How they were speaking without opening their mouths?

There are some picturesque scenes at the start. The scene in which bullock rest below a tree and shadow is dropping on them, it's one of the most beautiful I have seen. First five minutes are good, but after it, I can't stand it for a second.

Biggest dissapointment is that it was such a nice story. It had a lot of potential. A husband who doesn't care about the wife, a ghost who loves him, a not so caring father in law, the themes underlying this film could have made it one of the best films ever. But none of them were utilised.

Some uneducated(on cinema) morons will come and say, "what a piece of art". It always happens, in every country. Calling this art is an insult to actual art.
4 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed