Chiranjeevi

Chiranjeevi is a 1976 Kannada film that stars Srinath and B. Saroja Devi in the lead roles.

**Chiranjeevi \[1976\]: A Wasted Opportunity** **Movie Review/Analysis:**  **Cast:**  -Srinath as Sudhakar -Manjula as Sharada -B. Saroja Devi as Kaveri -T.N. Balakrishna as Basappa, Sudhakar’s father -K.S. Ashwath as Rajaraya, Kaveri’s father-in-law -Master Nataraj as Babu **Crew:**  Director: A. Bhimsingh Remake of 1972 Hindi film, Anuraag Production (Banner): Jaivijaya films The duration of Chiranjeevi is 135 minutes **The Plot:**  Rajaraya (K.S. Ashwath) is a rich person, who has lost his son and is living with his grandson, Babu (Master Nataraj), and daughter-in-law, Kaveri (B. Saroja Devi). Rajaraya loves his grandson a lot to the extent that when Babu goes to picnic, he also goes behind them. Meanwhile, there is an another rich person named Basappa (T.N. Balakrishna), who is a miser that he does not even want to give 20 Paisa to postman. His son is Sudhakar (Srinath). Babu meets a blind orphan named Sharada (Manjula), and she is very good in making statues. Babu and Sharada develop friendship. Sharada becomes close to Rajaraya and Kaveri as well. Rajaraya and Basappa are friends, and generally Rajaraya gives donations to orphanage where Sharada grew and stays, but this time he wants the miser Basappa to give donation, so he and the orphanage head gives false assurance to Basappa that his statue will be made etc if he gives donation, and Basappa who loves publicity, gives the donation. When Sudhakar comes to Rajaraya’s house, he falls in love with the blind Sharada and want to marry her. In the felicitation time, Basappa says that normal person should marry blind in his speech which was written by Rajaraya, and then Rajaraya makes announcements like Basappa is getting his son married to Sharada, which shocks Basappa. Later in his home, Basappa forbids Sudhakar from speaking with Sharada, which is not agreed by Sudhakar and his mother. Getting to know about this, Rajaraya comes to Basappa’s house and tells that he would adopt Sharada as his daughter, and give riches in dowry and also make her gain her eyesight by an operation. Basappa then agrees with this. But in a party, Babu falls and doctor initially thinks this is just stamina loss. But soon he gets tired and shows cancer symptoms. The doctor gets his blood test done and confirms to Rajaraya that Babu is suffering from cancer, and would die soon. Diwali is celebrated much earlier. Babu dies and as per his wish, his eyes are donated to Sharada, after which she discovers that Babu died. Rajaraya remembers about Babu, as Sudhakar and Sharada touch his shoulder and they walk as Kaveri watches from far. The film ends.  **Main Review/Analysis:**  Chiranjeevi is a remake of 1972 Hindi film, Anuraag. I watched this film today, and honestly I would argue that this film is a wasted opportunity, as it is a remake where the original writer, Shakti Samanta made a huge blunder, which unfortunately got retained in its Kannada remake as well. Due to which I strongly would argue that Chiranjeevi is a film for its time, which has aged poorly for me.  Positives:  1. The screenplay has cause-and-effect progression 2. T.N. Balakrishna, K.S. Ashwath, B. Saroja Devi, Srinath, Manjula, and the rest of the cast (Excluding Master Nataraj) have delivered solid performances 3. The songs are very good 4. The background score is very good 5. The atmosphere is pleasant and very good Negatives:  1. The story’s focus goes towards Babu, where he drives the story which does not have a significant conflict 2. Babu having cancer and dying in the context of this film does not add depth to the story rather it just dilutes the final emotional payoff.  3. The screenplay does not sustain interest 4. The pacing is slow as narrative developments do not justify the runtime 5. The film has very low energy 6. The picturization is very poor and has aged poorly for me 7. Master Nataraj is not convincing as Babu 8. Some portions of the film have been re-dubbed with different dubbing artists, and since I am familiar with the voices of T.N. Balakrishna, K. S. Ashwath, Srinath, Manjula, B. Saroja Devi etc, this feels awkward.  9. The film is not entertaining so the film has aged poorly for me in this aspect.  Suggestions:  1. The story should have been driven by either Sudhakar or atleast Sharada 2. The story in the 2nd half should have been about Sharada getting eyesight, her marriage with Sudhakar, and Basappa’s redemption **Explanation of why Babu having cancer and dying does not add depth to the story:**  My criticism of Babu’s cancer and eventual death in Chiranjeevi is fundamentally about the difference between introducing tragedy into a story and developing meaningful depth through that tragedy. Babu's death, rather than strengthening the narrative, actually weakens its dramatic structure and final emotional payoff because the film establishes one central conflict but resolves it through an unrelated tragedy where the most promising dramatic conflict concerns three characters:  i). Sharada: A blind orphan who deserves love, dignity, independence, and an opportunity to regain her eyesight.  ii). Sudhakar: A young man who genuinely loves Sharada and wishes to marry her despite her blindness.  iii). Basappa: Sudhakar's miserly father, whose materialistic outlook initially prevents him from accepting the marriage. This setup offers considerable scope for character development. Sudhakar's love could challenge Basappa's values. Sharada could become increasingly independent, while Basappa could gradually recognize that a person's worth cannot be measured through wealth or physical ability. However, the film does not fully develop these possibilities. Instead, the narrative shifts towards Babu's illness. The fundamental problem is that Babu's cancer does not emerge from the established conflict between Sudhakar, Sharada, and Basappa. It introduces an entirely different dramatic problem. Although Babu's death eventually enables Sharada to receive his eyes, this connection is primarily a story mechanism rather than a resolution of the film's central interpersonal conflict. Consequently, the tragedy redirects the story rather than deepening its existing conflict. Babu’s death provides a solution without meaningful character transformation where one of the strongest opportunities in the story concerns Basappa. Initially, Basappa refuses to accept Sharada as his daughter-in-law because she is blind. However, when Rajaraya promises to adopt Sharada, provide considerable wealth as dowry, and arrange an operation to restore her eyesight, Basappa agrees. This is particularly important. Basappa's acceptance is conditional rather than evidence of genuine moral transformation. His fundamental materialistic outlook has not necessarily changed. He accepts the marriage because Rajaraya offers him advantages that satisfy his existing expectations. This creates an opportunity for further conflict. For example, Basappa could have been placed in circumstances where he must choose between his materialistic values and his son's happiness. Instead, the film introduces Babu's cancer. When Babu dies and donates his eyes to Sharada, her blindness is addressed through a tragic external event. But what happens to Basappa's character development? The film does not provide a substantial redemption arc. Therefore, Babu's death helps resolve Sharada's physical condition without resolving the deeper moral questions raised by Basappa's behaviour. The narrative progresses, but the most promising character conflict remains underdeveloped. That is a significant distinction. Now I have praised the screenplay for having cause-and-effect progression. That assessment of mine can coexist with my criticism of Babu’s cancer. There is a difference between casual progression within individual sequences and organic development of the central dramatic conflict.  Let us consider the sequence involving Babu:  i). Babu falls during the party ii). The doctor initially suspects a relatively a minor problem iii). Babu subsequently exhibits symptoms of a serious illness.  iv). Medical examinations establish that he has cancer.  v). His family celebrates Diwali early.  vi). Babu dies.  vii). His eyes are donated to Sharada. These developments have an understandable cause-and-effect relationship. However, Babu's cancer itself does not arise from the decisions, mistakes, conflicts, or relationships driving the Sudhakar–Sharada–Basappa story. It is an external medical tragedy. There is nothing inherently wrong with introducing an illness into a family drama. Such developments can create considerable depth. The problem arises when the illness becomes the principal narrative focus without meaningfully enriching the conflicts already established. In Chiranjeevi, Babu's cancer appears to create a new emotional storyline rather than intensify the existing one. The film has causal continuity, but that does not automatically give it depth.  Sharada is arguably the character with the greatest potential for dramatic exploration. She is an orphan who is blind, possesses artistic talent, develops meaningful relationships, and eventually finds someone who loves her. Her circumstances offer several possibilities for character-driven narrative. Her relationship with Sudhakar could have been developed further. Her artistic abilities could have contributed to her independence. Her prospective marriage could have challenged the prejudices surrounding her blindness. Most importantly, the film could have explored how Sharada responds to Basappa's opposition. However, once Babu develops cancer, the narrative's attention moves towards his deteriorating health and impending death. Sharada's journey becomes increasingly dependent upon what happens to Babu. This is particularly evident in the conclusion. Rather, the resolution leaves much of Sharada's personal and romantic journey unexplored. As a result, a character who could have driven the narrative becomes comparatively passive during its decisive stages. Sharada regains her eyesight because Babu dies and donates his eyes. Although the event connects the two characters, Sharada's eventual transformation is achieved through Babu's tragedy rather than through the development of her own dramatic journey. This does not mean that receiving donated eyes is inherently an unsatisfactory resolution. Rather, the resolution leaves much of Sharada's personal and romantic journey unexplored. As a result, a character who could have driven the narrative becomes comparatively passive during its decisive stages. Babu’s death attempts to create emotional intensity without sufficient dramatic investment and this is perhaps the most important aspect of my criticism. A tragic event is not automatically a profound dramatic event. The death of a child is inherently distressing. However, cinema requires more than the seriousness of an event to create a satisfying emotional payoff. The audience must become invested in the character, understand the significance of the character's journey, and experience the consequences of that journey. I particularly identify two problems that directly affect this process.  i). First, I find Master Nataraj unconvincing as Babu ii). Second, the screenplay does not sustain interest and the film has very low energy. These weaknesses can substantially reduce the effectiveness of the tragedy. Even if the screenplay intends Babu's death to be heartbreaking, the emotional impact depends on whether the preceding scenes have successfully established a compelling relationship between the viewer and the character. Babu’s characterization and performance failed to engage me, and his eventual death felt like an attempt to manufacture sadness rather than the culmination of a meaningful dramatic journey. This explains why I can recognize the seriousness of Babu’s illness while finding that it contributes little to the film’s depth. The film asks the audience to feel the grief, but my experience with the film should suggest to others that it has not earned that grief through its story.  My criticism about the final emotional payoff is especially significant because the conclusion contains several developments:  i). Babu dies from cancer.  ii). His eyes are donated to Sharada iii). Sharada learns about Babu’s death iv). Rajaraya remembers his grandson v). Sudhakar and Sharada accompany Rajaraya while Kaveri watches These events are designed to create a bittersweet conclusion. However, the film's earlier romantic and social conflicts remain comparatively underdeveloped. The audience is therefore expected to experience several emotions simultaneously which is:  i). Grief over Babu’s death ii). Happiness over Sharada’s restored eyesight iii). Satisfaction over her relationship with Sudhakar The problem is not that these emotions are incompatible. A well-developed narrative can combine them successfully. The problem, is that the film has not adequately developed the relationships and conflicts necessary to make these emotions reinforce one another. Babu's death dominates the conclusion. Consequently, Sharada's recovery and her future with Sudhakar receive less dramatic attention than they potentially deserve. Similarly, Basappa's transformation does not become a significant source of emotional satisfaction. The film concludes with grief and remembrance rather than a fully developed resolution of its earlier conflicts. For my viewing experience, this weakened the payoff rather than strengthening it.  **Explanation of why is the film slow-paced despite being 135 minutes** There is a huge difference between duration and pacing. Short duration does not mean that the film should be fast-paced. Pacing depends on the frequency and effectiveness of narrative developments, the movement between situations, and the purpose served by individual scenes. Chiranjeevi’s duration may be just 135 minutes, but it is slow-paced because the narrative developments do not justify the runtime. This connects directly with Babu's cancer narrative. A 135-minute family drama has enough room to develop multiple relationships, provided those relationships contribute meaningfully to the central narrative. However, when the film devotes considerable attention to Babu's illness, the dramatic progression becomes concentrated around an outcome that the audience cannot meaningfully anticipate through character decisions. Once the cancer is established as terminal, the narrative largely moves towards Babu's inevitable death. The central question becomes whether he will survive. If the intervening developments do not reveal substantial new dimensions of the characters or their relationships, the progression becomes repetitive or emotionally stagnant. This also explains my criticism regarding the film having low energy in the first place. It is not simply that the film contains sad scenes. The issue is that the narrative spends time on emotional suffering without producing a proportionate amount of character development or dramatic progression. The early Diwali celebration may be intended to intensify the family's grief, but its effectiveness depends on how invested the viewer already is in Babu's circumstances and for me, these developments evidently do not provide sufficient narrative substance to justify the time devoted to them. **Why my proposed alternative would have strengthened the existing conflict:**  My two suggestions are closely connected:  1. The story should have been driven by Sudhakar or Sharada 2. The second half should have explored Sharada regaining her eyesight, marrying Sudhakar, and Basappa’s redemption.  These changes would fundamentally alter the narrative structure. Let us consider how the film could have progressed without making Babu's death the central event.  a). First half: Establishment of the conflict: i). Sharada develops her friendship with Babu and his family ii). Sudhakar falls in love with her iii). Basappa opposes the marriage because of her blindness iv). Rajaraya intervenes, but his promises of wealth and medical treatment expose Basappa's materialistic motivations.  v). The first half could conclude with Sudhakar determined to marry Sharada regardless of whether she regains her eyesight.  b). Second half: Development and resolution:  i). The second half could concentrate on Sharada's personal journey.  ii). Her relationship with Sudhakar could face challenges arising from Basappa's attitude.  iii). Sharada's artistic talent could become an important expression of her independence.  iv). Her potential medical treatment could be explored without making another character's death the necessary means of restoring her eyesight.  v). Most importantly, Basappa could gradually recognize the sincerity of Sudhakar's love and Sharada's personal worth.  vi). His eventual acceptance could become a genuine moral transformation rather than a decision motivated by dowry and the prospect of Sharada gaining her eyesight.  vii). The marriage could then provide a satisfying culmination of the film's romantic and familial conflicts. **Why this alternative offers greater dramatic potential:**  The proposed narrative structure would connect the major developments to the central characters where Sudhakar would actively defend his relationship. Sharada would have greater scope for personal development. Basappa would confront the limitations of his values. Rajaraya could remain an important supporting character who helps bring about reconciliation. Babu could retain his friendship with Sharada without becoming the principal driver of the entire story. The emotional payoff would emerge from the transformation of established relationships rather than the introduction of an external tragedy. There is no guarantee that this alternative would automatically produce a better film. Its success would depend on the screenplay, picturization etc. Nevertheless, it would directly address the structural weaknesses I have identified.  My Rating: ★½ – 1.5/5 My Verdict: Bad By: Vashista Bhat