Chances are that when you hear the word Kanoon (which literally means 'Law' but can also mean 'Law & Order' or 'Justice' depending on the context), cliched dialogues like 'कानूनके हाथ बहोत लंबे होते है’ or 'कानून अंधा होता है’ come to your mind. :-) Same is the case with me except that I had heard a lot about this first Hindi movie without songs. The fact that it is a suspense thriller didn't hurt, of course.
When I sat down to watch it recently on one Sunday afternoon on TV, I didn't know that it was directed by B.R. Chopra. But as soon as I heard the words 'कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फ़लेषु कदाचन’, I remembered them from the yesteryear's popular TV serial Mahabharata and even before I saw the banner, I knew that this film is by the Chopras. :-)
So the story goes something like this. Advocate Kailash (Rajendra Kumar is totally unconvincing as an advocate but what to do?) is the protege of Judge Badri Prasad (Ashok Kumar). When he is not in the court, Kailash spends his free time romancing the judge's daughter Meena (Nanda). The movie begins when a murderer Kalidas (Jeevan) is brought before the court for a murder that he was supposed to have committed about ten years back and sentenced to a jail term for. He points out that he cannot be tried for the same crime twice. It is also evident that he had been wrongfully sentenced 10 years back. He laments that the judicial system doesn't have any right to take from him what it cannot return. Kalidas has a massive heart attack in the court and dies on the spot.
This, naturally raises a lot of questions - the chief one being, should a person be deemed guilty based solely on the testimony of the witnesses? Afterall, such testimonies can be fabricated. Also, there is a chance that honest people might make a genuine mistake while testifying and that can cost the accused his/her life. The judge has a discussion on the same with his colleagues after the court is adjourned. And in the end, he ends up betting that it is possible to get away with a murder.
Meanwhile, the judge's son Vijay (Mahmood) has taken money from a moneylender (Om Prakash) but failed to pay it up. The moneylender threatens that if he is not paid, he will make use of the blank paper that Vijay has signed to get hold of his father's estate (I am not sure how Vijay can sign away his dad's estate but we will let that pass). Vijay tells this to Meena who goes to Kailash for advice. Kailash agrees to talk to the moneylender. He goes to the moneylender's place at night. While they are talking, someone rings the doorbell. Kailash, not wishing to be seen there, hides in an inner room. But he catches glimpse of the Judge talking to the moneylender. When he comes out of the room, however, he finds that the moneylender is dead. He gets the shock of his life but manages to slip out quietly.
The next day, the newspapers report the murder along with the fact that the police have managed to nab the murderer - a thief. Now Vijay is in a fix. Should he speak out the truth or keep mum to see an innocent person being sent to the gallows for the crime he didn't commit?
I loved the movie - notwithstanding Rajendra Kumar's wooden expressions, his compensatory overacting (watch his face when he is confronted with the truth at the end of the movie) and Nanda's horrible hair-styles. Ashok Kumar has played his part to perfection. We get to see the Jury System in this movie - which is very rare as it was banned in India in 1960 following the Kawas Nanavati case (the movie 'ये रास्ते है प्यारके’ was based on it). Plus, you get a breather from the usual garden frolicking by the leading pair :-)
I found this trivia on IMDB:
This film was made after director B.R. Chopra attended a German film festival, where he was told that all Indian movies contained "nothing but songs." He took that as a challenge. This film contains no songs.
I am glad he decided to take this as a challenge. Had he not done so, we wouldn't have been able to watch this very good whodunit that leaves you with some unanswered questions about the judicial system!
When I sat down to watch it recently on one Sunday afternoon on TV, I didn't know that it was directed by B.R. Chopra. But as soon as I heard the words 'कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फ़लेषु कदाचन’, I remembered them from the yesteryear's popular TV serial Mahabharata and even before I saw the banner, I knew that this film is by the Chopras. :-)
So the story goes something like this. Advocate Kailash (Rajendra Kumar is totally unconvincing as an advocate but what to do?) is the protege of Judge Badri Prasad (Ashok Kumar). When he is not in the court, Kailash spends his free time romancing the judge's daughter Meena (Nanda). The movie begins when a murderer Kalidas (Jeevan) is brought before the court for a murder that he was supposed to have committed about ten years back and sentenced to a jail term for. He points out that he cannot be tried for the same crime twice. It is also evident that he had been wrongfully sentenced 10 years back. He laments that the judicial system doesn't have any right to take from him what it cannot return. Kalidas has a massive heart attack in the court and dies on the spot.
This, naturally raises a lot of questions - the chief one being, should a person be deemed guilty based solely on the testimony of the witnesses? Afterall, such testimonies can be fabricated. Also, there is a chance that honest people might make a genuine mistake while testifying and that can cost the accused his/her life. The judge has a discussion on the same with his colleagues after the court is adjourned. And in the end, he ends up betting that it is possible to get away with a murder.
Meanwhile, the judge's son Vijay (Mahmood) has taken money from a moneylender (Om Prakash) but failed to pay it up. The moneylender threatens that if he is not paid, he will make use of the blank paper that Vijay has signed to get hold of his father's estate (I am not sure how Vijay can sign away his dad's estate but we will let that pass). Vijay tells this to Meena who goes to Kailash for advice. Kailash agrees to talk to the moneylender. He goes to the moneylender's place at night. While they are talking, someone rings the doorbell. Kailash, not wishing to be seen there, hides in an inner room. But he catches glimpse of the Judge talking to the moneylender. When he comes out of the room, however, he finds that the moneylender is dead. He gets the shock of his life but manages to slip out quietly.
The next day, the newspapers report the murder along with the fact that the police have managed to nab the murderer - a thief. Now Vijay is in a fix. Should he speak out the truth or keep mum to see an innocent person being sent to the gallows for the crime he didn't commit?
I loved the movie - notwithstanding Rajendra Kumar's wooden expressions, his compensatory overacting (watch his face when he is confronted with the truth at the end of the movie) and Nanda's horrible hair-styles. Ashok Kumar has played his part to perfection. We get to see the Jury System in this movie - which is very rare as it was banned in India in 1960 following the Kawas Nanavati case (the movie 'ये रास्ते है प्यारके’ was based on it). Plus, you get a breather from the usual garden frolicking by the leading pair :-)
I found this trivia on IMDB:
This film was made after director B.R. Chopra attended a German film festival, where he was told that all Indian movies contained "nothing but songs." He took that as a challenge. This film contains no songs.
I am glad he decided to take this as a challenge. Had he not done so, we wouldn't have been able to watch this very good whodunit that leaves you with some unanswered questions about the judicial system!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment