“Angry Young Men”: A documentary that entertains but does not enlighten

Even those who know the series well will likely experience a range of emotions – from tears to goosebumps. The documentary shines in moments like when Jaya Bachchan calls Salim-Javed a “brats” or when Honey Irani, Akhtar's ex-wife, mentions his penchant for writing dialogues for negative characters.

She also remembers finding them arrogant at times, which she believes ultimately influenced her judgement of scripts. Akhtar himself shares a poignant memory of his early struggles: “I stay in five-star hotels 1725381366… They bring out so much food and I always wonder where that food was on the days I didn't have anything to eat.”

For film fans like me, however, the documentary is unsatisfying because it lacks new insights and does not delve deeply into the collaboration between the two.

Although the idea of ​​the “angry young man” that they developed is mentioned, it is not discussed in detail when and where this idea first came about. Now, every era has its own zeitgeist – or spirit of the times – and using this for a cultural product can guarantee success.

As Cass Sunstein writes in How to become famousTo be successful, “some people have to tie themselves to the mood of the nation.” Salim-Javed did this with her angry young husband.

Actor Sharat Saxena recalls, “It was the '70s… The anger and fire that burned in that hero was the same fire that burned in every young man.” Here the documentary reaches its climax and then moves on. Akhtar, however, offers this caveat: “We were not aware of this while writing the film.”

A nice transition might have explained how the term “angry young man” came about. In its plural form, it originally referred to a group of British writers and playwrights such as Kingsley Amis and John Osborne, whose writings of the 1950s reflected their disillusionment with traditional British society.

Another important aspect that the documentary touches on but does not fully explore is the inspiration behind some of Salim-Javed's films. Take, for example, Deewar, a clever reworking of Mother India and Gunga Jumna.

Taking a primarily rural storyline and setting it in the port and underworld of Mumbai was a great idea. How did that come about? No details are given. In Kala Patthar, too, the main character is inspired by Joseph Conrad's novel Lord Jim.

Or take Salim-Javed's biggest hit Sholay. The plot is largely taken from Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. The scene where Inspector Thakur Baldev Singh's family is killed by the bandit Gabbar Singh is inspired by Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West. The famous water tank scene is taken from The Secret of Santa Vittoria and the coin toss scenes from Garden of Evil.

And as Anupama Chopra writes in Sholay: The Making of a Classic, “Raj Khosla's 1971 hit Mera Gaon Mera Desh, the story of a one-armed man who converts a petty criminal and uses him to protect their village from bandits, lurked like a ghost in the background… The Bimal Roy classic Madhumati contains a scene in which a boastful servant is caught by his master, much like what happens in Soorma Bhopali.”

Even the dialogues in the scene where Jai speaks to Mausiji and asks Basanti for his friend Veeru's hand in marriage were copied from Pakistani writer Ibn-e-Safi's 1955 novel 'Khaufnak Imarat'.

Of course, it took a lot of skill to weave all this into a coherent film. This material was available to other writers too, but they did not write a sholay. As Khan puts it, “Originality is the art of concealing the source.”

Also, there is a difference between inspiration and plagiarism. For example, Mahesh Bhatt's Dil Hai Ki Manta Nahi was a scene-for-scene copy of It Happened One Night; even Sharad Joshi's dialogues were translations.

Sholay was inspired but did not plagiarize. Still, we should not judge the moral standards of 50 years ago by today's standards, but in an age of strict copyright laws, such scripting would be unlikely.

The documentary answers the question of why the duo split up in the early 1980s as if their relationship had simply ended. However, the documentary could have been more engaging had it examined whether Salim-Javed relied too heavily on her “angry young man” stereotype.

As the zeitgeist began to change in the 1980s, cinema had to evolve. Of course, this is not an exact science and hindsight is always 20/20.

Finally, the documentary says little about their individual careers as screenwriters, which were not very successful. Was it because they worked very well as a team, with Khan developing the story, both of them working together on the script and then Akhtar writing the dialogue?

Angry Young Men was a bit of a disappointment to me as a film buff. But like Salim-Javed's films, it was entertaining and the best scenes are by Honey Irani. But what is Hrithik Roshan doing in this documentary? He is repeating dialogues that someone else probably wrote for him?