MovieChat Forums > Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi (2005) Discussion > medicine in london??

medicine in london??

posted 19 years ago by an_artist
15 replies | jump to latest

**Those who dint watch the movie, leave this page.

okay i just saw the movie and cudnt get y siddarth leaves to london. till he read out the last letter, i thought he was back in the naxal movement. how could he do that, i mean, his characterization does not support it. did u find it normal in the movie?
the guy who was so serious abt the movement leaves india for london in the end? and does medicine there?

well someone please talk abt it. it feels odd, cos the movie was wonderful till then.

[–] kya_bakwaas 19 years ago

Well, that puzzled me as well. Siddharth says he "can't fool himself any more". And Geeta is shocked and reminds him that "they" could have killed him; to which Siddharth says "they should have". I thought Siddharth wants to go back to his movement. Then why does he join Medical school?
And I am not sure if Siddharth goes to London. As far as I remember, in his last letter, he thanks Geeta for "sending Chetan to his Dad" - his Dad being in London (undergoing treatment perhaps). He talks about the medical school much later. So I am not entirely sure if Siddharth went to London to study Medicine.

Any ideas, folks?
Three Cheers for Sudhir Mishra - thanks for giving us a splendid movie.

[–] john-2519 19 years ago

Well.. same problem here..

Why would he go to London if he "could'nt fool himself anymore"?

I thought it would have made perfect sense for him and for the movie to convey to the viewer that Siddhartha was getting back to the movement.

[–] nehavish 19 years ago

It falls beautifully in place with the rest of the movie and the context. Even now in Delhi University there are scores of professors who were somehow involved in student politics, but then got into academics. Academics in India is the refuge of the idealist who still needs his daily dose of expensive liquor.

Siddharth's biggest character flaw is this - He loves ideas, not people. And a revolutionary's biggest commitment is to people.

[–] an_artist 19 years ago

nehavish,
ya may be it does fall beautifully in place. the question is not whether that shudve happened or not. the question here is whether siddarth's final decision is supported/builtup thru out the movie.
i feel it just came as a surprise without a proper reason/logic. wat d u think?

and kya_bakwaas, sid says 'thank u geeta for sending chetan with my father to london'

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] d-nilesh001 10 years ago

First of all ,I must join you in thanking you Sudhir Mishra for the great film, which we should be proud of.

About the ending , as answered by some friends here, I do not think that Sidharth looses faith in the ideology he once fought for, due to his experiences of hardships in Bihar countryside, due to realization of guilt that he had ruined Geeta's life and Vikram's too; and hence leaves for London. That is not the case.

He just escapes.
He escapes from the persistent self-stigma resulting from the fact that he had failed to bring the change he wanted to, failed to achieve his long cherished dream of revolution.
He says he 'can't fool himself any more'. I think he cannot bear this failure.
Geeta convinces him by pointing that 'they could have killed him'. She tries to suggest him that he had fought in every possible way he could , till the end. He is not convinced. He says they should have killed him.
He wants to run away from all this.
He escapes.

This ending comes as a shocker.
It could have been such that Sidhdharth gives up on his revolutionary dreams, but tries to do something possible for the people there by going to countryside again or maybe just simply lead to a well sophisticated urban life with Geeta.
The man who once lived for and was ready to die for his revolution, finally escaping to London, and Geeta going to countryside doing her bit for the people there, is a beyond tragic- disastrous ending.
Personally, I found it quite depressing.

[–] nileshbansal 19 years ago

I think Siddarth going to London and leaving the revolution was one very important part in the movie as the movie is mainly about how different the three characters were yet how convoluted their lives were.

Siddarth was a rich kid. He finds it adventurous and fashionable to be with the naxal movement. In the end he realizes that adventure was too dangerous and leaves for London.

Geeta sincerly cared about the people of Bihar and was therefore back with the movement. She had no illusions like Siddarth that she can change the world, yet she knew that she can help.

Vikram was a middle class person. He had faced hardships of life and therefore wanted to be rich and powerful at all cost.

[–] prashe 18 years ago

Yeah thats the whole point as Nilesh has correctly described. In the end, no character in the movie gets what he/she wanted. Thats the idea which the movie wants to portray. How we chase dreams and end up being somewhere we never wanted. Siddharth's dream is revolution, Geeta's dream is Siddharth, and Vikram's dreams of Geeta's love.

Infact, one more thing which I found fascinating was the relationship between Vikram and Geeta. Most of the words were not spoken between them still there was so much said, especially by Vikram( great acting by Shiney Ahuja! ) .

What say people ?

[–] NinjasScroll 18 years ago

'an_artist' you are right that siddharth's last decision is contradicting his character. but only the director can answer the question right :)

however in my opinion, unlike Vikram, his was more of character of revelation than character development (or build up). at very beginning, he's already established as an unselfish hero, a rich ideologist youngster inspired by new philosophies and contemporary music culture. But during time with villagers, he observes the things through various events that slowly makes him realize the difference between ideology and reality eg. jamindar's heart attack drama, murder of a person who beat two persons [to death?], others' disagreement to his idea of training the activists more, his hiding among women to save his life during police raid, Geeta getting rapped in front of him, the dilemma to help his friend or to run when his friend fell down before he gets shot, finally his begging to save his life. (i think) all this made him realize that "i can't fool himself any more" and "you have to forget you first love to go away" (or something like it). So I believe when he said "they should have" [killed him], it was more out of guilt than his implying that he is going back.

that's all

[–] y2koool 14 years ago

I found wolvie_the_weaponx's post best in thread !! few lines i found revealing more than i thought i already knew.

his was more of character of revelation than character development

various events that slowly makes him realize the difference between ideology and reality eg.......his hiding among women to save his life during police raid, Geeta getting rapped in front of him, the dilemma to help his friend or to run

I think all this was accompanied by overwhelming guilt, for being a sole cause of Vikram's tragedy.

Before watching movie,I kind of had a glimpse of final7min scene(while viewing song on youtube)so having pre-knowledge of Vikram's final stage i was kinda sour wen comrades come2rescue Sid n probida says "he's not in danger" wen sid suggests to take Vikram along.

very good movie.

[–] pablo16 18 years ago

- nileshbansal has got it right... i'm a bengali and we know what went through the youth of that period which had its nervecentre in Bengal.. imbibing attitudes of Dylan and Lennon and thinking Communism is the best way out-- they are only ideals exciting in Che Guevara books but- as siddharth found out- not so great in real life. So his disillusionment with all the naxalite **** was complete by the end of the film & he left for London.
You can get some background help on this by watching films of that period like Ray's Pratidwandi, Mrinal Sen's Calcutta '71, Padatik and Interview or Hazaar Chaurasi Ki Ma(i've only read the book by Mahashweta Devi, but haven't seen the Govind Nihalani film version)...

Emancipation from the bondage of the soil/is no freedom for the tree.
Rabindranath Tagore

[–] azeeth 18 years ago

Well do you remember the lines
"Hazaaron khwaishein aisi ki har khwaish par dam nikle.
bahut nikle mere armaan lekin fir bhi kam nikle."
written by Mirza Galib

This is what the movie all about. We do certain things, which aren't gonna do any good to us, but still we do it like a duty.
Pretty confusing. Well is this called possesiveness?

??

[–] shagorikadas 18 years ago

I think there is another aspect to Siddharth's character that perhaps isn't apparent immediately. He's selfish. He thinks only of himself and his ideology (which changes conveniently to suit circumstances). Which is why he selfishly leaves Geeta to follow his own ideologies, selfishly disregards his Dad's advice to go off on the basis of his whims and ideologies and finally selfishly when he realises his idealogies are not working out how he wanted them to, he goes off to study medicine in london (yes, because he can afford to). He is not a strong character who can actually help and support people be it the biharis or his own family. He lives and has lived only for himself and his idealogies, without any responsibilities (which is why he can up and leave when he feels like it).
It is perfectly befitting his character and in fact drives a nail through the head when he leaves for london in the end.

[–] sharpiyu-1 12 years ago

I think you have got it a bit mixed up. It was not Sidharth but his son Chetan that was taken to London by his grandfather. Sidharth did go back to his rural area and probably was learning traditional indian medicine from someone in his village..

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]