This is the film that everyone is talking about and you may ask whether it is worth the hue and cry that is being made about it. I would say that this worthless film is certainly a film which requires debate, not only with regard to the ethics of film making but the also with regard to the content of the film and what is being passed by the censors.

Ek chhoti si lovestory is a controversial film. Whether it would have been had Manisha Koirala, its heroine and only star, not moved heaven and earth and Bal Thackeray to stop the film from seeing the light of day is another question. Given its subject matter, the film was bound to shock if it was to remain substantially in the version as seen by audiences all around.

However, the first and most important issue must be the director’s reprehensible conduct in inserting scenes of a body double which Manisha had the option to object to. This she did but found that the scenes were not removed from the final cut and the film was to be released despite her objections to those scenes. Shashilal Nair had given Manisha a letter stating that he would retain the scenes subject to Manisha’s approval.
It is beside the point that everyone now knows that Manisha did not enact those scenes. The fact of the matter is that had this issue not been blown up in the media, one would have assumed that those scenes were being enacted by Manisha. It is my opinion that Manisha had every right to object to those scenes.

The second question that arises is whether the scenes are in fact that objectionable. Having seen the film first in its cut form, rather unkindly, I imagined that Manisha’s crusade was more because the film shows her in a most unsympathetic light, gigantic in size, wearing hot pants and skimpy clothes in what is a rather worthless film. But I take back any such views on seeing the uncut version which had me reeling on two fronts: firstly, the cheap and salacious use of the body double in scenes which by and large add nothing to the film and have been inserted for cheap thrills to titillate the audience. How can Nair justify the shot of panning onto the lead character’s underwear in the beginning of the film, half sliding off her bottom. And what is the need for the boyfriend’s hand to go wandering in that underwear at a later stage? A repulsive sight.

Possibly the most objectionable part is the love-making scene on the bed. How is it possible that not only have the censors passed the film with an adult certificate but the judge also found nothing to complain about? It is a most grotesque abuse of the censor’s rules I am sure. Meanwhile a woman lies bruised and battered at what is simply tearing her honour to shreds. No sir, no matter what the merits of the film may be, Manisha did not deserve this.

Ek Chhoti si lovestory starts almost as if it was being relayed backwards. A hand stretches across to touch a young boy’s bandaged arm but is pushed away. Next scene we see glass breaking and a boy escaping from a hospital, stealing back into his house-light falls on the primary character in the film, the telescope. Cut to Manisha playing cards in her flat across the road. It makes no sense whatsoever. This is Nair trying to be his pretentious best and failing miserably.

An ample Manisha lives in the flat across from Aditya, a 14 year old boy who is obsessed with her. He lives with his elderly grandmother who is not averse to taking a peek through the telescope either, and who even justifies her grand-son’s later actions saying that he religiously watched Manisha. Granny did not seem to think there was anything unhealthy in this obsessive voyeurism.

Aditya follows Manisha to work and one day tells her that he watches her from his flat. Despite the unlikelihood of someone really confessing to this, Manisha is horrified though its clear that Aditya is only a child with a giant crush. Hard, independent and ultimately vicious, her immature reaction is to provide Aditya with a “real show” and unknown to her boyfriend, ‘makes out’ in full view and with the knowledge that the boy will be watching this act. On discovering what the boy has been up to the boyfriend wallops him to the ground. Contrary to expectation Aditya , undeterred, continues his pursuit leading to the crushing climax of the film.

This film is undoubtedly lifted from the Polish film “A short story about love”…Give Nair credit for not only lifting the idea of the film but also the title. None of the characters inspire empathy and they certainly cannot be identified with. At the core is a sense of nastiness which pervades throughout with Manisha perhaps the nastiest character of all. Unsympathetic, selfish and unfeeling, her final humiliation of the boy leaves a grotesque impression- of a woman’s harsh, lined face caked with makeup, morally bankrupt and alone. No, this is certainly not a humane character nor one that exemplifies women’s emancipation or sexual freedom.

Barely more believable than Manisha’s character, the young boy is completely friendless and unbelievably obsessed, though Aditya Seal manages to inject some redeeming sense of child-like quality into his performance. None of the rest of the cast deserve a mention.

Manisha Koirala probably thought she was making a film for the ART circuit- it does have that feel to it, no songs, minimum sets, the mundane watering of plants to show “realism”. The film however is worthless, not even effectively copied by Nair and there is nothing Manisha can do with her vile character. This is no Summer of 42. Undoubtedly intended as a commentary on the loss of innocence, the film is anything but that. Like its characters the film is one-dimensional, openly sensationalist and emotionally bankrupt.

My final words go out to Manisha. This is a grotesque mistake, not only as far as the film is concerned but because of the humiliation that she has suffered as a result. There is nothing that can be done at this point, the film is out, is a hit and is on DVD. If the laws allow her she should sue the director/producer for breach of contract, libel, the works and make sure he never works in this industry again.