User reviews

What a movie!! What a hidden gem! Can't thank a friend (VNR) enough for recommending this film. Its the ultimate soul-searching movie. "Stop searching, stop worrying, give love! Live in present. Everything changes, everything returns"! Some deep Indian philosophy in the film, presented by non-Indians primarily! I find that amazing. The music of the film by Hemant Kumar works beautifully. Very simple, melodic, mostly Bengali. Haunting. Gels so well with the river, nature depicted in the film. "O re nadi" is my favorite. The entire film has a feel reminiscent of Satyajit Ray's film making. Brilliant production. Watch this film. It will stay with you for long. Maybe a lifetime.

Siddhartha, a Brahmin's son, and his friend depart his father's house in search of a different life than the sedate environment of the home. His father (Amrik Singh) says that if he finds truth then return and tell him. And if he should find nothing to return anyway; as like the river, everything returns.

His path through the story, which takes place in no certain time or place, sort of parallels the Buddha's searching's but is not a fictionalized version. His friend finally chooses another path leaving Siddhartha to find his way alone. Siddhartha decides that enlightenment comes from within and cannot be taught. The Buddha admonishes Siddhartha not to be too clever.

His search takes him through several lives as he learns of love and money, and a few more experiences. He almost seems like a snot as he explains to a courtesan that he does not love. Recognizing that he has wasted his time searching, he comes to some interesting conclusions.

In this 1972 film by Conrad Rooks captures more of the original book than he intended. The film was not intended to be more than an adoption of the book as the director figured that his 25 years in India gave him a better insight than Hermann Hesse's (the book that the movie was based on) 11-month insight.

One of the profound items I picked up on was the speech about what "a rock" could be.

I used to love Hermann Hesse and this book in my teens. Still, I love this film, even because I consider it to be a very appropriate filming.

Hesse's characters are mostly soul-searchers wandering around in rather artificial surroundings - which is true in the case of this timeless, ancient India. As he is prone to put all the meaning into lengthy, philosophical dialogues, this makes him utterly difficult to turn into film.

This film manages to capture both: the artificiality of the setting as well as the philosophical sincereness - plus that certain naive sense of beauty that makes Hesse so appealing and disgusting at once. A good deal of the films success is due to Sven Nykvist's marvellous camera work, done mostly with natural light. (The few scenes with set light are awful.) The beauty of the landscapes is not only the superficial one of a postcard, but the philosophical one that tells you that a beautiful world is essentially a good, complete, happy world: a world in which you can afford to completely focus on your personal search for meaning and spirituality. Well, personally I don't believe this, but this movie had me suspending my belief for 90 minutes. What a comforting experience.

No movie that is even marginally true to the story that Nobel Prize-winning German author Hermann Hesse told in his novel Siddhartha (1951) is without merit; and this modest film is no exception. The problem is, that while Conrad Brooks, who wrote, directed and produced the film, is true to the storyline of the novel and even in some respects true to the spirit of the novel, he fails to bring the power and the resplendence of Hesse's philosophic and spiritual masterpiece to the screen.

What made the novel one of the best ever written is the character of Siddhartha himself. Patterned after the Buddha both in temperament and in experience, Hesse's Siddhartha, "the Accomplished One," grew up amid extravagant wealth and privilege only to dump it all in an effort to find himself. Brooks fails almost immediately when he leaves out the scene from the book in which the young Siddhartha, not wanting to directly disobey his father (and to demonstrate his resolve) stands up all night waiting patiently for his father's permission to leave their splendid estates. This is one of the great "coming of age" scenes ever written and an early insight into Siddhartha's strength of character, but Brooks gives it barely a notice! Also skirted over too quickly are Siddhartha's years with the samanas in the forest where he practiced meditation and austerities. This part of Siddhartha's life was essential in making him the man he was and in showing us his character. He spent six years with the shamans and gurus of the forest (along with his companion Govinda) and in the end learned everything they knew and more, and yet had not found the answer he sought. (This parallels the experience of the "emaciated" Buddha.) Brooks does do the meeting with the Buddha well, having us hear his voice but not see him, and then follows that up with Siddhartha's reasons for not following the Buddha, even though he finds no fault with the Enlightened One's teachings. Note that without his actually meeting the Buddha, the life of Siddhartha (which is one of the traditional names of the Buddha) would so closely parallel that of the Buddha that some people might think that Hesse had written a profane life of the Buddha, which might not set well with some Buddhists! (Of course we all have the Buddha nature.) Siddhartha's life with the courtesan Kamala and the merchant Kamaswami and his spiral into debauchery and sloth is well depicted, although again the ultimate disillusionment that Siddhartha experienced is not as well presented as in the novel. Which brings me to Shashi Kapoor who plays Siddhartha. Although he would go on to be the veteran of well over a hundred films, and although he is appropriately enough Indian as well as tall, dark and handsome and a good actor, he fails to evoke the passion that Siddhartha must have. Siddhartha felt everything in a profound manner, even boredom was profoundly experienced by the Brahmin's prodigal son. Kapoor, especially near the end of the film when he plays an old man, occasionally made me feel that he could be "the Accomplished One," but more often he made me feel that he was holding something back.

Finally, the poetic scene near the end of the novel when, after living with and being guided by Vasudeva, the ferryman, Siddhartha becomes one with the river and falls spiritually into its wisdom, is only a bland shadow of what appears in the novel! Part of the reason for the failure probably has to do with a limited budget. The film is 83 minutes long, but could easily be twice that long. Part has to do with the selection of scenes and the emphasis on those scenes, and finally part of the reason has to do with the relative inexperience of Brooks who was only directing his second major film (and apparently his last). Certainly the on-location in India cinematography by Sven Nykvist who worked on so many films with Ingmar Berman is not to be faulted. Although not spectacular, Nykvist's camera conveys both the exotic beauty and the poverty of a landscape that could have been India 26 centuries ago.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

After seeing this movie again in New York recently and noticing that it was going to be available on DVD, I ordered it immediately through Amazon.com and decided to send the following comments, which were posted in the "customer reviews" section:

1. The plot. The Nobel Prize winner, Hermann Hesse, wrote Siddhartha in 1922. It is a novel about Eastern spirituality (many Indian scholars consider it as one of the few successful examples of Indian philosophy presented by a Western author). Siddhartha is one of the names given to the Buddha himself. The novel narrates the pilgrimage of the son of a Brahmin, his struggle to find his own destiny; his friendship with Govinda (his "shadow"); his encounters with many different people: the Samanas (the ascetics that practice self-denial); Kamala (a courtesan who claims that she can teach and provide love as an art); Kamasawami (a rich merchant who becomes his boss); and Vasudeva... - note Vasudeva is another name given to Krishna, the teacher/driver of Arjuna in the Bhagavad-Gita).

2. The Movie. In 1972, Conrad Rooks (an almost unknown movie director who made "Chappaqua" in 1966) came out with a 94-minute movie transcription of Hesse's novel. He engaged Sven Nykvist (the famous Swedish cinematographer of Igmar Bergman) and a mainly Indian cast, including Shashi Kapoor (Siddhartha), Simi Garewal (Kamala), Romesh Sharma (Govinda) and Zul Vellani (Vasudeva). The beautiful music was composed by Hemanta Mukherjee (I hope the soundtrack will be available soon). It will be particularly enjoyable for those who have read the book. In many of the scenes the synergism produced by the photography, the music and the acting is superb. And with few exceptions, the movie is a good transcription of the book. The book and the movie became part of the "cult culture" of the West coast of the early seventies, but it never got the attention of the general public. With a condescending tone, Leonard Maltin refers to the movie as "too arty, but on-location photography ... is often dazzling".

After seeing the DVD transfer I was very happy with its high quality. There are 27 interesting minutes of comments made by Conrad Rooks about why and how he made the movie 30 years ago. With the DVD technology I am able to enjoy my favorite scenes and particularly the music of Hemanta Mukherjee on texts from another Nobel Prize, Rabindranath Tagore. Because of these unforgettable moments, I give a rating of 10, absolving Rooks from his "youth sins".

It would be easier to write the following comment if the copyright owners, made the film accessible to individual consumers...I`m trying to remember the thematics of this film!! I saw this film 2 years ago on the big screen. This film is far from being about a pointless quest, those are words of a mind that has lost the way , the way to self knowledge, through such questions as: "who am i?"" where did i come from?", and "where am i going?". These might seem irrelevant to the impatient mind but given ample time, the relevancy to all people will become very apparent. What this film conveys is one man`s journey on such a path of "self"knowledge. An indepth appreciation of indian thought or , philosophy or likewise may prove invaluable in terms of understanding , some of the seemingly fleeting or trivial scenes, or more culturally esoteric moments in the film, thus,enabling one to be more fully consummated by its story, however I am sure it is not a prerequisite for the artfully minded!. Among the the features of this film, is the music, of a musician singer who is legendary in India(I cant remember his name right now!)and is certainly legendary in this film, and is certainly a beautiful record of the 'Indian' spirituality alive and breathing to this day in India. If anyone can tell me where i can get the soundtrack or some compilation of the music in this film i would be very appreciative, (this request is a long standing one)

This film would appeal to those people who see or find or sense themselves on a similar"path" or quest, and may give much confirmation or food for thought about the possible turning points, or unknown or unexpected "detours" that one finds themselves engaged in along the way. This film offers a message, a very sound message about the quest of the human spirit its struggle for higher fulfillment, which i add Is the quest of the human being.

Not having read Hesse's novel, I went to see this film during its first and controversy-plagued release in Calcutta in 1976, purely for the music composed by my idol Hemanta Mukherjee. The film was certified by the censors as fit 'For Adults Only'. By Indian standards, I can see why.

Regarding the music, 2 correspondents had flayed Hemanta Mukherjee in the Calcutta daily THE STATESMAN for having vulgarized Siddhartha's quest with two Bengali songs, each from a different, and earlier, Bengali film. True, one can wonder why Bengali in a film which has already used the convention of characters in ancient India speaking English. Imagine Achilles in TROY suddenly breaking into modern Greek while otherwise speaking English. However, the theme song on the river is unexceptionable contentwise. I am a little uneasy about the other song. Let us concede that for anyone who has seen the 2 Bengali films, the songs would come with their own distinct situational associations. This is my problem with the other song, as I had seen the Bengali original by the time I saw SIDDHARTHA.

Watching the film again in the late 1980s at the Penultimate Picture Palace, Oxford, I had to confess to a sneaking sympathy with my cousin, who, in 1976, had dismissed the film as 'pavement philosophy'. The narrative struck me as potentially pretentious and quite unconvincing in its pontifications at times.

The photography, however, is breathtaking,and the cast seem sincere in their performances. Incidentally, with reference to user gabravo123, at the PPP, Oxford, I think a bunch of Bengali students were the only viewers in a single row.Similar to his/her experience? However, the reason why not one of us moved as the closing credits rolled is because we were all mesmerized by the divine voice of Hemanta. For gabravo123's information, the two songs have been available on a 45 rpm disc since the late 70s, only there is no reference to the film on the disc. It is just titled HEMANTA KUMAR. They, I'm sure, are available now on CDs of the singer-composer's film songs. Incidentally, why does gabravo123 mention Rabindranath Tagore? I hope s/he is not implying that Tagore has anything to do with the lyrics, both of which are by the late Gouriprasanna Majumdar.

I saw the movie Siddhartha some time ago because when I first saw the title, I recognized it as a philosophical work from my college days when I study Hesse's work from my philosophy class.

It is a great film: I enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed the book by Hermann Hesse. As a philosophy major, the philosophical underlinings in the movie are most appropriate. It is by all accounts, a true Hesse's commentary on the meaning of life and man's condition on earth.

I especially liked the music although the lyrics were foreign to me. I wish I could get a translation of the songs that made the film even more enjoyable.

A great philosophical work of art.

Dont want to write a long review, but this is exactly how you massacre literature:

• by completly disregarding spiritual / character development moments
• by not having any transitions between scenes / by not connecting them in any kind
• by choosing wrong pieces for the puzzle that is film
• by focusing too long on less important moments / characters and disregarding important characters
• by not devivering the obvious message in the book
• by not having any interessting / memorable shots (i really don't understand it, with such capable DP)
• by making powerful moments absolutely cringy
• leaving me thinking thinking that even beginner film-students would deliver a more consistent / coherent / impactful film

This film is stunning in its beauty. The music is transcendent. For the longest time I tried to get the soundtrack. To save you the trouble, be aware that they never made one! There is one scene in which a woman blows on a shell that was so powerful I still remember 30 years later. Mesmerizing. If you have not seen it yet, rent it today.

I saw the movie twice, the first time in Sweden in 1974; I had read Herman Hesse's book before that, and the story had strongly impressed me. The movie was even better then the book! the photography was very poetic, the music (indian flutes, tablas) was very high in the aesthetics band, and the story conformed more or less with the book, but without taking away any of it's impact. there were 12 people in the theatre, and at the end as the credits were scrolling for what seemed at least 20 minutes, no-one moved from their seats as transfixed by what they had just seen. I am sure that all 12 of those people recall to this day the effect that this film created on them. I am not a Buddhist or even very religious, but i personally recommend it as part of a person's education in life....

I was expecting a semi documentary about Siddhartha Gautama who became the Buddha but the only similarity is that it's filmed in India and uses the same name.

If you loved the book by Hermann Hesse, you will most likely love this film. At times, it seems rather disjointed - almost as though I had blinked and missed a scene. I really consider this film to be a great companion to a great book. I am curious to know what people who had not read the book would think of this film.

This is much smoother but less interesting than Conrad Rooks' other earlier and more cultish film, his drug autobiography `Chappaqua' (1966), which has cameos by Allen Ginzburg, William Burroughs, and jazzman Ornette Coleman in it. The trouble is `Siddhartha,' beautiful as it is, is a simplification of a simplification, and a spiritual quest isn't something you necessarily understand better through lush visuals, though unquestionably some of Sven Nykvist's watery landscapes with trees are unforgettable, the color is deep and rich, the music is pleasing, and the principals are awfully good looking people. Not surprisingly the high point cinematically is the sequence showing erotic encounters between the handsome lapsed sadhu, Siddhartha (Shashi Kapoor), and the lovely courtesan, Kamala. Simi Garewal, who plays Kamala, is a gorgeous creature whose lovely eyes, long aristocratic nose, and pouty lips remind one of the all-time arch teaser and sexy sophisticate of English films, Joan Greenwood. But Ms. Greenwood never was got up in the kind of exquisite gilded see-through gear Simi wears in her scenes with Shashi Kapoor. She's something to look at.

When his buddy Govinda decides earlier to follow the Buddha, Siddhartha leaves Govinda bereft by deciding to go off on his own lone search, without a guru. It seems that the point is you must pursue your quest on your own. But Siddhartha's splitting with Govinda seems somewhat meaningless since at the end of the movie, Siddhartha has joined up with the peaceful boatman he met years earlier toward the end of his sadhu period, and he winds up spouting the boatman's words of wisdom: live in the present, stop seeking, don't worry, be happy, and watch the river. The Buddha apparently hasn't helped Govinda all that much either, since he meets Siddhartha again and also needs to be taught the boatman's simple doctrines. One can't help thinking they'd both have done better staying with the Buddha, who did, after all, found one of the world's great religions.

It's rather amusing that during the two men's youthful sadhu period, when they're on the road with a group of penniless holy men, `meditation' is represented as singing rhythmically and passing a bong. My picture of this activity was different, but `Chappaqua' shows how obsessed with and involved in drugs Conrad Rooks was.

This is a lovely, but empty and ultimately not very cinematic film. Sven Nykvist's photography is at the service of a vision so generalized (Siddhartha is a universal type, not an individual), that too often the images look like something out of `National Geographic' with mise-en-scène by Bollywood. The scenes are not as exotic as those Pasolini created for his `Arabian Nights' (1974), nor are Rooks' depictions of Indian rural life ever remotely as real as Satyajit Ray's in the `Apu Trilogy.' For a trippier film version of Hermann Hesse, see Fred Haines' `Steppenwolf,' which came two years after `Siddhartha,' in 1974. For a more original film depiction of a spiritual quest, see the story of G.I. Gurdjieff as done by Peter Brooks in `Meetings with Remarkable men' (1979).

The theme of siddharta, is the very special searching of meaning of life. The movie even in some ways can be better than the book,because give the viewers more imagination about the representation of the agony looking for the meaning of life. Siddhartha is a brahaman, so is a man with great wealth, is not a simple ignorant person looking for the meaning of life. He renounces all the wealthiest things to look for the real treasures of life,that is the metaphisican undertanding of life. The movie for somebody that is familiar with esoterism has a lot of meaning,for the general public:"We never see the transformation and....-comment of Canberra,Australia-"; not understanding at all.

I have always been very interested in the life of the Buddha, so I was looking forward to this movie. It was quite a disappointment. The movie was made in 1972, modelling the fortune cookie, stilted dialogue from Charleton Heston in The Ten Commandments, Richard Burton in The Robe, and presaging Alec Guiness as Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars. The beauty of the movie is the misty panoramas of the quiet river. It such a beautiful peaceful world prior to the invention of machines. The crude makeup to show Siddhartha ageing reminded me of many a Monty Python sketch. There are some embarrassing long sex scenes. I left the room. They just felt cheap and tacked on porn, only marginally to do with the flow of the movie. The movie might have worked better with the sound off and subtitles to disguise just how stilted, turgid, corny and idiotic the dialogue is. "Everything returns" is passed off as transcendental wisdom.

Siddhartha is a young man who leaves home and sets out on a long search for the meaning of life. He's like a many protagonists from folklore, who've sought immortality, perfect honesty or whatever - he's engaged on a quest for something that doesn't exist and isn't worth finding, which WE could have told him at the very beginning; but of course he must find out for himself. His character matches that of his counterparts in folklore. He's a nice chap, a bit obsessive, very clever - but on the one point that motivates him he's exceptionally dense. He does so much navel-gazing that when tragedy touches him we're surprised he even notices. Don't let this put you off. You'll like him all the same.

(By the way, although Siddhartha's character is much the same at the end as it is at the beginning, there is a brief unconvincing montage that shows him corrupted by worldly values. We never see the transformation and it's hard to believe that it could possibly have taken place.)

The India in which the story takes place is timeless (albeit convincingly solid), although we soon find out that Siddhartha is a contemporary of Buddha, who he meets but who doesn't appear in the film. (It's a kind of Buddhist `Ben-Hur'.) I thought this was a nice touch; but the intrusion of real world creeds is indeed an intrusion. One problem with this kind of story is that the audience is really just waiting for the hero to realise that he's chasing a rainbow's end, and speaking for myself I'd prefer to watch the hero's life, rather than listen to empty platitudes and claptrap, while I wait. But I must say the platitudes have been very prettily dressed up. Hesse or Rooks or whoever is responsible had a great gift for making nothing sound like something.

Photography is gorgeous and the gentle editing lulls us into accepting the fairytale. There's a lovely smorgasbord of Indian music. (SOME of this music you're bound to like - it's much too varied for any one person to dislike it all.) It's not an arresting film, but it's a sweet and guileless one. Try to see it under circumstances that best allow you to absorb the sights and sounds.

His Excellency Great Late Hemant Kumar had two bengali songs in this movie which are very very melodic.

Her Excellency Simi Garewal did best start nudity on screen. His Excellency Shashi Kapoor played ok under very bad direction. It should be remade.

Very Very Very Bad Movie. Please remake it again properly with better music and art form.

Its been years and years since I read the book in school. Which for me was a big deal cause I never read any of the books they assigned. But for some reason I read this and it was probably the first book I ever read cover to cover that wasn't a comic. I can remember always liking the story and it has stayed with me all these years. I rented this as a DVD recently never knowing that there was even a film adaptation. Im glad I did. For me it was everything I remembered feeling when I read the book. I cant really speak to whether it is a faithful representation of the book at this point but I can tell you that it is absolutely faithful to the spirit of the it.

The film is very elegant and the story remains relevant and inspiring. It is beautifully shot and scored. The one problem with the film was the editing. It tends to be choppy and disruptive to the continuity of the story. It also jumps drastically forward in time at several points. If you have read the book than its not really a problem but for someone who has not it may be.

Even at 1 hour and 20 minutes the film still feels epic in scope as it explores Siddharthas lifelong journey to find life's meaning and ultimately delivers a timeless message about the nature of the human condition.

There is No Gene for the Human Spirit.

I Can Think, I Can Wait and I Can Pray.

...other than that no redeeming features. I didn't realise that this had been made circa 1972. I thought it was a new release in 2003. I thought it felt dated (and now I know why). The pace of the film was slow, and the acting...well, it was sort of like watching a high school play.

Nice message, though, even if a little "preachy."