User Reviews

Chakra depicts a toxic life, representing hell on earth. It follows a vicious cycle of destruction of hope and faith in life. The movie shows how poverty extracts its toll in multiple ways, with very little scope for the silver lining. Life becomes tenuous, self-destruction being as a big a threat to continuation of life as other demons. The story weaves through the ups and downs, mostly downs, of life in the sub-altern. Naseer has a dialog in the movie that all torment comes from the need of stomach and the organ below it – from the need for survival and sex.It showcases the nakedness of how raw emotions are lived out in public. Privacy of grief and shame is not a privilege available to the poor. Everything plays out in the open, magnifying its bleakness. In some ways, similar rules apply to lives of the very rich also. The ending is seems squished, in its eagerness to dramatize the treachery of Chakra of life.

The only film made by Rabindra 'Robin' Dharmaraj since he died soon after, even before it got released. Chakra is a gritty, realistic and mostly interesting look at the daily goings-on in a slum population. Thankfully the film doesn't expect you to sympathize with the class of people it is about, only to present a fleshed out social document of the particular (yes, this is not a generic wail at social inequality or such crap) community it deals with.

Following the life of Amma (Smita Patil in another solid performance) a feisty sexually active widow who labors to eke out existence for herself and her teenage son, the story in anecdotal fashion examines the peculiar social and moral setup of this tribe where survival for the next day justifies all means to obtain it. The film has a decent assortment of interesting characters and the documentary aspect is delivered without any cheap holier-than-thou posturing.

The end seems to come together a bit hodge-podgedly with an obviously forced element of drawing the full circle, so to say. But Chakra remains an interesting product of the Indian New Wave and given the genuinely intelligent touch with which he helms one may likely have seen other worthy films from Dharmaraj if he hadn't passed away so early.

It would have been part of mainstream cinema and a hit as well, had it been made in present times. A story about slum dwellers, their lives, their fight to make daily living, fight with system and fight with each other. A beautifully made movie has won 3 Filmfare awards in 1982; Best Actor (Naseeruddin Shah), Best Actress (Smita Patil) & Best Art Director (Bansi Chandragupta). And a National Award for Smita Patil as Best Actress. It has a couple of good songs too.

I new this would be something different because Smita Patel was in it - I watched it 10 years ago on a used VHS but it made such a strong impression that I can remember it now. Why do I like it ? - It drew me in emotionally; - I wanted these people to break out of the slum; - I followed the movie through to the sad if not surprising end; - it left me gutted and touched; - the "gazals" are superb, the opening song sets the mood of the people, simply, after years of subjugation they may as well accept their lot.

If there is a "negative" aspect of the film is that the ending is not satisfying from a Hollywood standpoint. But thats what makes this such a great movie for me. Highly recommended.

I had seen this movies in the 80's when it was the so called art film highly appreciated for the performance of smita patil naseeruddin shah but watch it again in 2000 one will realise how much the young generation are much better than the directors of 80's who considered bollywood movies as trash and categorized their movie art movie an intelligent movie. But today when we see bollywood movies yes there are bad movies but almost majority of them are realistic movies with scope not only for hero but all actors of all ages and looks. This 80's director made movies with actors with average looks or no looks in one piece of cloth sad, unhappy, poverty stricken, humiliated by society or some upper caste etc and majority of those movies gave first preference to smita, shabana, naseer , om puri where in fact there were many other talented actors with talent and looks for such movies were available. So even after making self proclaimed intelligent movies they relied on saleable name to cast which was totally unfair. If you compare Arth with today's movies you will find it average movie. What smita did no doubt she was a very talented actors but today web series actors can give much better performance, if you look at naseer as a ruffian from slum and compare today's actor with same role which is very common in movies, serials, web series naseer performance is below average you can even say he over acted. Today Arth is just below average even compare to web series made on such subjects.