City of Joy (1992)

Director:

Roland Joffé

Writers (WGA):

Dominique LaPierre (book)
Mark Medoff (screenplay)

Release Date:

15 April 1992 (USA)

Genre:

Drama

Tagline:

True heroism lies in the quality of the struggle.

Plot:

Hazari Pal lives in a small village in Bihar, India, with his dad, mom, wife, Kamla, daughter, Amrita...

Plot Keywords:

Leper | India | Hope | Protection Racket | Hospital

Awards:

1 nomination

Cast

Patrick Swayze	...	Max Lowe
Om Puri	...	Hazari Pal
Pauline Collins	...	Joan Bethel
Shabana Azmi	...	Kamla H. Pal
Ayesha Dharker	...	Amrita H. Pal
Santu Chowdhury	...	Shambu H. Pal
Imran Badsah Khan	...	Manooj H. Pal
Art Malik	...	Ashok Ghatak
Nabil Shaban	...	Anouar
Debatosh Ghosh	...	Ram Chander
Suneeta Sengupta	...	Poomina
Mansi Upadhyay	...	Meeta
Shyamanand Jalan	...	Ghatak - Godfather
Shyamal Sengupta	...	Gangooly - Con man
Rudraprasad Sengupta	...	Chomotkar

Also Known As:

La cité de la joie (France)

Runtime:

132 min

Country:

France | UK

Language:

English

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1

Sound Mix:

Dolby

Certification:

Iceland:12 | UK:12 (original rating) | South Korea:15 | UK:15 (video rating) | Argentina:16 | Australia:M | Chile:14 | Finland:K-12 | Norway:11 | Spain:T | Sweden:11 | USA:PG-13 | Singapore:PG

Filming Locations:

Calcutta, West Bengal, India

Company:

Allied Filmmakers

Trivia:

Indian writer 'Sunil Gandopadhyay' - a former collaborator of Satyajit Ray - was brought on board to help with the script's authenticity. This also acted as a seal of approval for the Indian authorities who will only allow foreign productions to film on the continent if they contain significant Indian input.

Quotes:

Hasari Pal: All that is not given is lost.

Movie Connections:

Referenced in Blonde Poison: The Making of 'Basic Instinct' (2001) (V)

Not like the book but a good story

The movie is not bad. It is based on the book by the same name by Dominique Lapierre, and if my understanding is right has the author's blessings. The characters even have similar if not same names but it is not the same story. However it is true to the spirit in which the book was written.

Another interesting comparison with the book is that just like the movie, the book is as controversial, especially in India and among middle class Indians and Indians abroad. Indians do not like to speak about their slums to foreigners and do not like foreigners to speak about them by themselves. Rich and middle-class Indians who make about one-fourth of the country are the most influential people in the country and make the interlocutors with the Western world. I know because I am one of them. If our country is our home, this is a skeleton in our closet. And because there is a skeleton in our closet, we try not to step into it and do not let other and hate those who do step in when we are not looking. The controversy is an indication that lot stuff in the movie is actually worth seeing.

Also it is not unusual for a poor man in India to choose to die with dignity than live in shame, Indian girls do flirt even if it is 'untraditional' and there are people who try to live by exploiting the poor, people who most others will call cruel.

The movie could have done a better job capturing the fact that western ideas can affect the way some people in India behave just as Indian ideas make some westerners reformulate their ideas and concepts about life. We can see it here, but this is better captured in the book

So those who do not like the movie try to read the book and those who liked the movie will definitely enjoy the book. As for me, stories of the resilience of Indian slum dwellers only make me more proud to be an Indian.