MEN such as Mohammed Ali Jinnah are more controversial when dead than when alive. The film now being shot, entitled simply Jinnah, the name by which the founder of our country wished to be known and recognised, has been made controversial. Nothing new, nothing surprising, given the moral and intellectual dishonesty that swamps this country. Jinnah achieved what few have achieved. Stanley Wolpert, who has written the best biography of the man so far published, which was also made controversial, summed up Jinnah with perfection in the opening lines of his
preface:
Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Mohammed Ali Jinnah did all three. When Wolpert s book, Jinnah of Pakistan, was published by Oxford University Press-New York in 1984, OUP- Pakistan immediately imported 500 copies. But, before putting it up for sale, OUP sent two copies to Zia s information ministry, the men of which upon reading it immediately took hypocritical umbrage at two factual paragraphs and one sentence relating to Jinnah s eating and drinking habits. The ministry confiscated the remaining 498 copies, and distributed them to visiting dignitaries and to in-favour intellectuals of this land who it was felt would not be incapacitated by the truth. The government later relented and informed OUP that the book could be reprinted and distributed were Wolpert to agree to delete the passages imagined to be offensive. Wolpert, naturally, rejected outright the absurd suggestion. It was not until 1989, when Wolpert was called in by Benazir Bhutto to write a biography of her father, that it was reprinted by OUP in its unexpurgated version and found its way into our bookshops.
Now to the film, Jinnah. This present controversy has been blown up by one newspaper which has printed a sustained series of front-page and other articles mainly by an unnamed special correspondent . The man writing these pieces should have had the courage of his convictions and put his name to what was written. This controversy can only further the cause of violent religious bigotry, which this present government is doing its best to curb, and to stir up anti-Indian feelings at a time when the government is taking steps towards solving some of the differences with our neighbour. The objections of the newspaper in question are to a script it claims existed in September last year. Now, film scripts are updated and changed from day to day. I have gone through the script, as it is now, and have found nothing in it that can possibly be termed, by even the most hard-core bigot, either anti-Islamic, anti-Pakistani, anti-Jinnah or anti-anything. There is no mention of any angel, let alone Gabriel, and there is no boatman telling Jinnah to shut up , as has been trumpeted by the publication in question. In fact, it is apparent that those making the film have been most careful to ensure that the sensibilities of the run-of-the-mill tunnel-minded opinionated monomaniacs of this land are well protected from illusory hurt.
Making a film on Jinnah is not easy. One has to be imaginative, which producer-director Jamil Dehlavi undoubtedly is. Jinnah s life was neither dramatic nor stirringly heroic, nor the stuff of which epics are made. He was never a self-styled martyr, he never went to jail, he never went on hunger strike, he never led marches or processions, he indulged in no political gimmicks. He made his point and got what he wanted through calm and determined negotiation. He was an Anglo-Saxon by bent and training, he was a man of strong secular beliefs, forward- looking, shrewd, who knew well the difference between religion and religiosity. He had a flexibility of spirit and mind qualities lacking in the men and women for whom he made a country. He wanted a modern Pakistan, in tune with the democratic liberal world. One excellent thing the script writers have done is to include a scene showing Jinnah speaking to the Constituent Assembly in Karachi on August 11, 1947, when he set forth for the future framers of the constitution of this land what was, in essence, his creed:
If we want to make this great state of Pakistan happy and prosperous we should wholly and solely concentrate on the well- being of the people. You are free. Free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state... my guiding principle will be justice and fair play without any prejudice or ill-will, partiality or favouritism. We must root out the poison of nepotism and corruption. And I am sure with your support and co-operation I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest nations of the world.
Alas, none of this was to be. Jinnah died too soon, leaving behind too few honest men of vision. Akbar S. Ahmed, the executive producer of the film is also a controversial figure, either liked or strongly disliked. He is a professor of anthropology who has held the Iqbal Chair at Cambridge for the past five years, and a Fellow of Selwyn College. Such positions are not attained by sycophancy or by clout, but by merit, when a man is recognised for his intellectual worth. He is also on the panel chosen by the Prince of Wales to advise him on the various projects relating to ethnic minorities in Britain. The newspaper, which for its own peculiar reasons, has chosen to churn and stir up public opinion about everything to do with the film, objects to the choice of Christopher Lee to play Jinnah, on the ground that 40 years ago he acted as Dracula. In his career, this fine character actor has acted in some 260 films, in countless different and divergent roles. He is 74 years old, he looks, walks and talks like Jinnah, and he can in no way be termed anti-Pakistan. A ludicrous charge to bring against him. An objection has also been made to Shashi Kapoor, an internationally famed actor who happens to be an Indian and a Hindu. Is criticism on these two grounds at all valid or logical? Since he is being constantly mobbed in the lobby of his hotel and when he goes out to the set, it seems that the sane and sensible Pakistani has no objections to him at all. Jinnah certainly had no objections to Hindus. One of his closest friends and confidants was Kanji Dwarkadas.
I do not claim to be an authority on Jinnah, but I can make an assessment of what the man was like from the stories and anecdotes I have heard about him in my childhood and youth from his contemporaries. Jinnah was in and out of the Karachi and Bombay houses of H.J. Rustomjee, my mother s grandfather, and spent much time with his sons, Pestonjee and Dhunjishaw. And I used to hear much about him from my father, and from his architect, Dinshaw Daruwalla, and his personal legal adviser, Minocher Kotwal. My advice to the producers was to show Jinnah, the man, as those close to him knew him Muslims, Hindus, Parsis and British to show him as he was, a normal human being with no false pretensions, who behaved as a normal human being, was treated like one, and who enjoyed the good things that life has to offer. Had they done so, the film would surely be banned in this land of myths and delusions and thus make a lot of money. But they did not want to risk it. The film is being funded by private enterprise and the government, who are satisfied with its veracity and viability. Let it be seen and then let the controversy begin. Some will like it, some will not, there will be much valid and invalid criticism. Let those now criticising it, before it is made, make their own film on Jinnah, a better one. No one is stopping them. We will cheer them on. The timing of a film on Jinnah and his life is important. Few in the West are really interested in Jinnah. A film on him, under normal circumstances, would find a poor audience. But there will be interest in him and his times later this year when the 50th anniversary of the loss of the Indian Empire is commemorated with much fanfare. This is the ideal time for Jinnah to be released and shown, when the flame of the old dead Raj flares briefly again. Let thousands of people who have barely heard the name Jinnah learn about him, his achievement, and his place in history. REFERENCE: Mohammed Ali Jinnah By Ardeshir Cowasjee DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending : 15 March 1997 Issue : 03/11 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/15Mar97.html#moha
Dr Safdar Mehmood & Haroon ur Rasheed have been trying their best so construct a bridge between Secular Jinnah & Deobandi Scholar Ashraf Ali Thanvi to Islamize Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Pakistan, and each time Dr Safdar Mehmood & Haroon ur Rasheed create/concoct a lie to achieve the desired result ends up in more confusion. Pakistani Scholars are strange, they have several version of Ideologies/Islam to concoct Alleged Islamic Ideologies of Pakistan e.g. on Blasphemy Law they follow Traditionalists, while executing/implementing the Blasphemy Law these ideologues target the most marginalized section of the society i.e. Minorities whereas spare Blatant Blasphemers within the Mullah Community (Deobandi, Barelvi, Shia books are riddled with Blasphemy and their Mullahs often resort to worst kind of Blasphemy in the name of respective Fiqh), same Ideologues adopt a criminal silence on the practice of Blatant and Brazen Apostasy/Disbelief e.g. Practice of Sorcery openly in Pakistan & Promoted through Pakistani TV Channels. Above mentioned Alleged Scholars shamelessly quote Apostate Masnoor Hallaj & Blasphemer Ali Hajweri in their Daily Jang Column without any check or any threat of use of Blasphemy Law from any quarter for quoting Blasphemous Sufis. Dr Safdar & Haroon ur Rasheed & their partners in crime e.g. Mujib ur Rehamn Shami (Dunya TV) and Irfan Siddiqui (Daily Jang) take one more giant step they often praise Mawdudi (Founder of Jamat-e-Islami) whose Blasphemous Views on Prophets (Peace be upon them) & Companions of Prophet Mohammad (May Allah be pleased with all of them) are not a secret. Irony is that Dr Safdar/Haroon ur Rasheed are praising Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi & Jinnah's alleged connections, conveniently forget about the Religious Edicts (Fatwas), Books, even Fatwa of Apostasy issued by the very same Deobandi Scholars on Mawdudi and Jamat-e-Islami. It is requested that Dr Safdar Mehmood & Haroon ur Rasheed would also reveal the Fatwa of Apostasy against Jinnah and Fellow Alleged Founders of Pakistan, and Fatwas were issued by Barelvi, Deobandi, Jamat-e-Islami Scholars.
http://jang.com.pk/jang/feb2012-daily/22-02-2012/col2.htm
Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Rabi-ul-Awal 21, 1433 A.H.
http://jang.com.pk/jang/feb2012-daily/14-02-2012/col2.htm
Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Deoband & Sex Education - 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0nrCk0S76g
Shamaaim-e-Imdadiyah
Quote 1: Shamaaim-e-Imdadiyah, p.35 and 36 - In Shamaaim-e-Imdadiyah, a story of a Fakir (hermit) who believed in Wahdat al-Wajood is mentioned. After approving the Aqeedah of the Faqir, the author says: “It is Shirk to differentiate between the worshiper (Aabid) and the Worshiped (Ma'bud)… To summarize, based upon the explanations of our predecessors, we understand that this position is Haqq (true) and there is no doubt about it. However, its reality is experienced only when a disciple becomes distant from his own self by striving hard and ignoring every danger. Because when a person becomes unaware of his self, he is unaware of everything. Nothing remains in his thoughts or his sight except Allah. Therefore, all concentration of the disciple is upon Allah. When nothing distracts his attention and he meditates his mind on Allah; then when he opens his eyes, he sees nothing but Allah. (At this stage) the Dhikr of Hu Hu (He He) turns to Ana Ana (Me Me). This stage is called Fanah der Fanah … (Similarly) from the special Ummah, Ba Yazid Bastami said: ‘Subhaani maa Aadhaam-Shaani (Glory be to me, Far removed am I from all imperfections, how great is my state) and Mansoor Hallaj said: ‘Anal-Haqq’ (I am the Truth)
Quote 2: Shamaaim-e-Imdadiyah, p.42 - “In the stage of Uboodiyyah (The state of being Abd or worshiper), there are three meanings of the Kalimah – “Laa ilaha illa Allah”, Laa Ma’bood (Nobody is worthy of worship), Laa Matloob (Nobody is desired) and, Laa Mowjood (None exists), the last being the loftiest stage.”
Quote 3: Shamaaim-e-Imdadiyah, p.49 - Ashraf Ali Thanvi mentions the explanation of the Hadeeth, “Whoever sees me then he has indeed, seen the Truth.” to mean that the one who sees the Prophet, he has Indeed, seen Allah.” REFERENCE: Quotes from the books of the Deobandis http://www.ahya.org/tjonline/quotes/index.html
Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, Deoband & Sex Education - 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_d3cGHv72U
THERE are two ways in which we can honour the memory of Quaid- i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The first is that we order our national lives in accordance with the guidelines he set for his vision of Pakistan. The second is that we allow him to rest in peace. The first is too idealistic and it has not suited the successive cliques or coteries or in-groups who have assumed or seized leadership through manipulation or subterfuge or force majeure and become the custodians of our lives, become what is sneeringly called the ruling elite. The second too is not possible since we have decided to observe his birth and death anniversary and these occasions provide an opportunity to issue messages that reek of earnestness and sanctimonious humbug and to hold meetings and seminars where speakers invariably lament weepily our departure from his principles. There is too the ritual of visits to his Mazaar and any one who assumes public office, places a wreath on his grave, converting the visit, into a photo-opportunity. This has become a mechanical exercise, something that comes with the job. It goes without saying that the Quaid would have thoroughly disapproved of this kind of an homage as he would have thoroughly disapproved of the shambles we have made of his dream. Now a film on him is being produced and it has created a fierce controversy even before a foot of the film has been shot. It is hard to pin down the precise objections to the film beyond the fact that, in the perception of the critics, the wrong people are involved in the production of the film and there are serious misgivings about their motives.
As the controversy heats up, bits and pieces of the supposed script have been somewhat mysteriously released to the press. Objection too has been taken to the casting of a Mr Christopher Lee as Jinnah, the objection being based on the fact that the actor has played the role of Dracula in the past. Objection too has been taken to the choice of the director Mr Jamil Dehlavi, whose past, according to these critics, has been shady. And there is Mr Shashi Kapoor who has been cast as the narrator who is an Indian and, therefore, creates his own turbulence. And looming over all these is the major domo of the project Prof. Akbar S. Ahmed. Let me make it clear that I know none of these people either personally or by reputation. I have read the names of Shafqat Jamote and Shariffudin Pirzada as having some connection with the film. These two I know and have for them both, respect and affection and in the case of Shariffudin Pirzada also admiration. My friend Ardeshir Cowasjee has given him the jolly sounding name of Jadoogar. It has been said of him that asked by Ziaul Haq to produce a rabbit from a hat he produced the Eighth Amendment. No ordinary rabbit but Bugs Bunny!
Not knowing any of the people involved in the film, I also know nothing of film making. I cannot offer any opinion on whether the right people are making the film or whether the script, snatches of which I have read in the newspapers, shows up the Quaid-i-Azam as a caricature, as the critics maintain or as a great leader as the producers insist. We will only know when the film has been completed.
It is necessary, however, to obtain some sort of clarification about the funding of the film. Is it being privately financed or has the Government of Pakistan some financial stake in it? The idea of wanting to know is to fix the responsibility as regards the end-product. But let me put this film in perspective. In 1983 Sir Richard Attenborough made a film on Gandhi. The film was widely acclaimed and I wrote a column on it, that is to say, 14 years ago. Much of what I wrote applies to the present controversy. I had written that our own response to the Gandhi film was that there should be one on the Quaid-i-Azam. The point I made was that it was irksome that the interest in a film on the Quaid has been triggered by the fact that a film on Gandhi has been made. In other words, it is a reaction and one wonders whether there would be this clamouring for the film on the Quaid had there not been one on Gandhi. It would be banal to suggest that it would have been more appropriate that we should have wanted a film on the Quaid for the fact that he was the Father of the Nation rather than merely because we have been scooped by a film on Gandhi , I argued.
Those who are now demanding that the script of the film should be vetted by the government don t entirely realise what they are asking for. This too I had anticipated. How would one circumvent the bureaucracy that inevitably would want to get involved? There are so many questions that can be asked. Film making is highly creative. It brooks no compromise. How will a consensus be reached on what the general direction of the film will be? And how will the film deal with those who sat out the battle but claimed the booty? I had asked.
I concluded the column by offering this advice: Perhaps, it might be simpler to forget about the film and pay our respects, instead, by working for a Pakistan that the Quaid so avowedly wished for its people. I think this advice is still good. But whatever my personal views may be on the subject of the film, there is in the raging controversy an element of pre-censorship. It does not seem fair to me that something should be condemned even before it has taken shape. Once again we find that we are not allowing the Quaid-i- Azam to rest in peace. One wishes that the same concern and anger would have been shown about the direction of the country which appears to be going nowhere than about a film. REFERENCE: The Jinnah film Omar Kureishi
DAWN WIRE SERVICE Week Ending: 15 March 1997 Issue : 03/11 http://www.lib.virginia.edu/area-studies/SouthAsia/SAserials/Dawn/1997/15Mar97.html#thej
Pakistani Movie Jinnah. English Version Full Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDSqaJIkTS4
Playwright Imran Aslam has not forgotten Jinnah neither the man nor the movie. For the former he has nothing but veneration for the latter, unalloyed venom. Akbar S. Ahmad’s brainchild, Jinnah did not do well at the box-office, and remained mired in controversies from the word go. Billed as a belated answer to Richard Attenborough’s eight Oscar-winning Gandhi, Mr Ahmad’s movie had been tainted by allegations of monetary improprieties even before it was released. “My contention is that Mr Jinnah needs not to be shown as an apologist in a movie. People voted with their feet. They walked away from the movie,” argues Mr Aslam with an unmistakable note of acerbity in his voice. Imran Aslam denies that he engineered a virulent media campaign against Ahmad’s movie, Jinnah, because he had been rejected for Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s role after what he calls a perfunctory audition. “Let me tell you about my meeting at a friend’s place with Edward Fox who played Mountbatten in Jinnah. Mr Fox did not know who I was. He struck up a conversation with me. Before long we were talking as if we were great friends. Then he started telling me about the barbed criticisms that the movie was getting. He said: ‘You know there is this mad editor who wanted to play ‘Jinnah’ and who is now out to destroy the movie. He’s laid a siege to our houses. If I met him, I would wring his neck.’ I promptly stuck out my neck, and said: ‘Here’s the neck.’ You could have knocked Mr Fox down with a feather when he learnt that I was Imran Aslam. He said: ‘If I had not met you, I would have thought you have horns.’ “
True, Aslam does not have horns. But a large number of people would say that he has a screw loose when told that he has made a movie which he claims depicts the real Mr Jinnah. “I have made my movie. It is called Yours sincerely, M.A. Jinnah. I asked M.A. Jinnah to write the script of the movie.” Elaborating his point, Aslam said: “M.A. Jinnah unfortunately did not write his biography. But he wrote enough. He wrote letters and speeches, and they constitute the script of the movie.” Directed by Imran Aslam’s brother, Nasser Aslam, film editor from the British Film Institute, the movie comprises 26 episodes, each six minutes long.
“There are no characters in the movie except the sole spokesman,” explains Imran Aslam. He adds that the movie has been shot by his brother Nasser’s wife, Natalie Wulfing, who is a trained camerawoman. When asked who plays Jinnah in the movie, he replies cryptically: “I merely read the letters.”
Aslam stresses that no accusations of fiscal shenanigans can sully his movie. His hint is too broad to be lost on the well-informed. “We did not raise any chanda for the film. The people of Pakistan, the few that we approached, gave a lot.” “For the last three months, Pakistan Television has been sitting on the movie. I met PTV Managing Director, Yousuf Baig Mirza and gave him the film.” It is indeed surprising that PTV is taking so long to run the movie; more so in view of the fact that the script of the movie draws completely on the Quaid-i-Azam’s speeches and letters to his contemporaries, such as undivided India’s last viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, Mahatama Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, “showboy of Congress,” Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, George Lloyd and others. If PTV requires more than two months to censor the words of the founder of the country, one wonders how long it will take to examine the words of foreigners. “I have made this movie for the young who see M.A. Jinnah only on currency notes or in pictures hung on walls. There is more than one situation in the movie which shows how astute, far-sighted and open-minded Mr Jinnah was. Gandhi and Jinnah were poles apart. Gandhi used to keep saying he was a four-anna member of the Congress. Mr Jinnah’s retort is quotable. He said: ‘Mr Gandhi, when will you clothe yourself with authority?’ Mr Jinnah is my hero. Let his words speak for themselves,” contends Aslam. This writer is “one of the few privileged people” in Mr Aslam’s words, to have seen a preview of his movie. Due to intelligently applied make-up and his remarkable resemblance to Mr Jinnah, Imran appears a faithful reflection of the Quaid-i-Azam. He seems to have borne Sarojini Naidu’s words in mind when she described Mr Jinnah’s appearance thus: “Tall and stately, but thin to the point of emaciation, languid and luxurious of habit, Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s attenuated form is a deceptive sheath of a spirit of exceptional vitality and endurance.” REFERENCE: Another Jinnah on the screen By Bahzad Alam Khan July 21, 2002 http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/images/archive/020721/images3.htm
It was meant to be the final cinematographic word, the officially sanctioned version of the life of Pakistan’s founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. But it has generated so much controversy that the government, which commissioned it, is now having second thoughts about it. The film on Jinnah was commissioned by Pakistan President Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari and the interim government which ruled Pakistan between November 1996 and February 1997, to honour the leader in the 50th year of its independence. Budgeted at 3 million pounds, it is produced by Pakistan Television. The film generated controversy even before shooting began, with the selection of Christopher Lee, famous for his portrayal of Dracula, to play Jinnah. Professor Akbar Ahmed, a bureaucrat, anthropologist, scholar, is currently shooting the controversial film on the Quaid-e-Azam in Karachi. Soon after Ahmed and his crew arrived, some newspapers in Karachi started a campaign to denounce the film. Leading this protest is Imran Aslam, the editor of The News. He cannot be completely objective since Ahmed screentested him too for the protagonist's role. "They are trying to trivialise the whole thing by trying to put the blame on me," says an angry Aslam in a telephone interview from his office in Karachi. "It is not about me being spited; I was approached 10 years ago by Robert Mulligan to play the role of Jinnah." But he makes it clear he does not like the central character.
"The selection of Christopher Lee to play Jinnah is like making Mukri play the role of Gandhi," he says. Ahmed admits having auditioned Aslam, but says, "We finally chose Christopher Lee because he bears a striking resemblance to Jinnah." That is enough to incense the fans of the famous leader. "His age is perfect, he speaks and acts the part with great dignity. Our motive was to get the best person possible to portray this part," he concludes. Richard Linton plays the younger Jinnah. The movie begins with Jinnah in the dock, answering accusations. The idea is that Jinnah is waiting to go to heaven and is explaining himself. "The film is a mix of Time Bandits and Salman Rushdie. It looks like someone wrote the script in a daze of hash," says Aslam, attacking the film.
The other grouse critics have is Shashi Kapoor playing what appears to be the archangel Gabriel. Shashi Kapoor laughs as he exclaims, " Oh no! I'm not playing the archangel. There is none in the film. I play the role of the narrator -- it is similar to the role of the sutradhar in Indian (drama); it’s like the chorus in plays of Shakespeare. My character is in limbo; it’s a mix of fiction and abstract… There have been all kinds of malicious rumours springing up, mostly from the newspapers in Karachi, though things have quietened down now." Professor Ahmed clarifies, "It’s a device we have used to give the background and explain the historical situations to the audience of the younger generation."
The current government led by Nawaz Sharief, who has his own axe to grind with Leghari, has asked his minister for cultural affairs Mushahid Hussain to scrutinise the script and delete objectionable scenes. Hussain, who is also Sharif’s advisor on media affairs, said the government has blocked funds for the film "The script is… being scrutinised right now," he said in a telephone interview, adding, "They wanted additional funds of one million pounds which will be given after I have gone through the script. They are currently shooting with the money in their kitty." He said he could not reveal which scenes were objectionable because the script is confidential material..." He said the ministry had a lot of work to look into " so, inshahallah, we will be through with the script soon." Professor Ahmed claims the authorities are solidly behind him. "Nearly 30 per cent of the film has been shot, and we have all support from the government. It would have been impossible to shoot without their help." He even claimed funds were not withheld, "otherwise, we would not have been able to shoot the film. Whatever the controversy is it is in the local papers because one gentleman in particular has been spited." In the midst of all the flak, Shashi Kapoor is at peace. "The atmosphere is very congenial," he says. "Apne hi log hain, yaar. The same people, the same culture, you don't feel like you are shooting outside India. I'm honoured to be part of a film that will create history." Kapoor was contacted by director Jameel Dehalvi for a project years ago, but the film did not materialise. Then Dehalvi asked whether he would work on a project that would take 11 weeks. "I said, well, that is a pretty long time and I had not even read the script. But on reading it, I liked it very much and was thrilled to do the film," he says in a telephone interview from his hotel in Karachi.
He finds the whole thing very touching. "The crowd scenes are very moving to watch. When Jinnah walks through the crowds, we actually had old men who were not part of the crew touching him… It reminded me of… the shooting of Gandhi… in Bombay and Delhi. The people here treat him with such reverence." For all that, Shashi Kapoor has been provided security by the producers. "Not that there is any problem. I do move about, I go to people’s houses for lunches, to the Sindh club… It’s a very nice place, with really great people. After all we are one and the same." He is all praise for Christopher Lee. "He is a marvellous actor besides being a good human being, he is very conscious of the responsibility that he carries playing the role of the Quaid-e-Azam." Associate producer Ruby Mallick told Rediff On The NeT, "We have finished shooting most action scenes, including the refugee scenes,’’ adding shooting will continue in Pakistan till May 11 and then for two weeks in London. The 73-year-old Christopher Lee is reportedly hard at work on his role, shooting from 5 am to 9 pm. The other characters are James Fox who plays Lord Mountbatten, Sam Dastoor as Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Varma as Jinnah's wife Rati, Rashid Surhadi as Nehru, Pakistani actor Shakeel as Liaquat Ali Khan. The music is provided by Ustad Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan. "The film will be a great exposure of the Quaid-e-Azam to the world, not just the people of India and Pakistan," says Kapoor. "Very little of the man has been televised or filmed. The film is a tribute to the life and feelings of the great man." REFERENCE: 'Christopher Lee playing Jinnah is like Mukri playing Gandhi' http://www.rediff.com/news/apr/05jinnah.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment