top of page

By:

Waleed Hussain

4 March 2025 at 8:04:30 pm

Abhishek Sharma: The Fireworks Are Back

Somewhere in the dusty corridors of cricket history, a lonely footnote just sat up and demanded a raise. Abhishek Sharma, the left-handed wrecking ball from Punjab, has returned to form with the subtlety of a firework display in a library. One moment he was enduring the kind of lean patch that makes even your most loyal aunt start muttering about “maybe trying a different grip,” and the next he was turning Afghanistan’s bowlers into unwilling extras in a highlight reel that belongs in a...

Abhishek Sharma: The Fireworks Are Back

Somewhere in the dusty corridors of cricket history, a lonely footnote just sat up and demanded a raise. Abhishek Sharma, the left-handed wrecking ball from Punjab, has returned to form with the subtlety of a firework display in a library. One moment he was enduring the kind of lean patch that makes even your most loyal aunt start muttering about “maybe trying a different grip,” and the next he was turning Afghanistan’s bowlers into unwilling extras in a highlight reel that belongs in a museum of modern violence. The climax arrived on a Thursday night in Delhi that was supposed to be a dead rubber. Afghanistan had already been politely but firmly shown the door in the series. The crowd was there more out of habit than hope. Then Abhishek walked out and decided the evening needed a plot twist. Thirty balls later he had a hundred. Not a careful, graft-your-way-there hundred. A 30-ball hundred. The fastest by an Indian in T20 internationals, the fastest by anyone from a full-member nation against another full-member nation. Nine fours, eleven sixes, and a celebration that involved sitting cross-legged in a meditation pose as if he had just finished a particularly satisfying yoga class rather than dismantling an international attack. The numbers are almost rude. Strike rate north of 300. Afghanistan’s total in reply: 94. Margin of victory: 127 runs. Player of the Match. Player of the Series. Somewhere, Rohit Sharma’s old 35-ball record against Sri Lanka is quietly requesting a transfer to a less competitive league. What makes the whole thing funnier is the timing. Abhishek had arrived at this series with the kind of recent form that invites unsolicited advice from strangers on social media. There had been the England tour, the Ireland misadventure, the occasional nine-innings stretch without a fifty that had the pundits clearing their throats. Form, in cricket, is a mysterious and slightly vindictive force. It leaves without warning, stays away longer than it should, and then returns wearing a cape and asking if anyone missed it. Abhishek simply refused to panic. He kept talking about process, about playing like “Soormas,” about not letting one or two bad series define the batting group. Then he went out and scored 229 runs in three matches at a strike rate that would make a calculator blush. There is something almost comic about the way he does it. Other batters sweat and grit their teeth and talk about “taking the game deep.” Abhishek treats the first six overs like a personal invitation to rearrange the furniture. He doesn’t so much play shots as issue eviction notices to the ball. The bowler runs in with hope; the ball leaves the bat with a sense of urgency and a one-way ticket into the stands. By the time the fielding side has adjusted the field, he has already adjusted the scoreboard beyond recognition. Sensible Friend His opening partner Sanju Samson had the good sense to make a fifty of his own and largely stay out of the way, which is the cricket equivalent of being the sensible friend who drives the getaway car while the other one sets the building on fire. The rest of the Indian batting order came and went with the polite efficiency of people who know the main act has already finished the show. Afghanistan’s bowlers, to their credit, kept running in. They just ran in looking increasingly like men who had been told the fire extinguisher was full of glitter. The humour, of course, sits in the contrast. Cricket loves a redemption story, but it prefers them with a bit of struggle and soul-searching. Abhishek’s version skips the montage of lonely nets and late-night doubts and goes straight to the part where the hero casually rewrites the record books while looking mildly surprised that anyone is still talking about the earlier lean patch. “One or two bad series won’t define us,” he said afterwards, which is the sort of line that sounds humble until you realise he has just scored a 30-ball hundred and the opposition has been reduced to 94. What comes next is the usual cricket question: can he keep it going? Form is a fair-weather friend, and the next series will bring new bowlers with new plans and the same old hope that this time the left-hander might, for once, play a quite little thirty. History suggests those hopes are optimistic. (The writer is a senior journalist based in Mumbai.)

When Art Becomes a Battlefield: Revisiting ‘The Train’

Feb 15, 2025
3 min read

Updated: Feb 18, 2025

The Train

In the waning months of World War II as the Allies inch closer to Paris, an art-obsessed Nazi colonel embarks on a final, desperate act of cultural plunder. A locomotive brimming with stolen masterpieces - works by Renoir, Matisse, Degas, Picasso, Van Gogh - barrels toward Germany. Thus begins John Frankenheimer’s relentlessly riveting ‘The Train’ (1964).


The film, one of the last great action spectacles shot in stark black and white, is a rare bird - an ‘intellectual actioner’ that merges spectacle with substance.


War films have long been fixated on what makes a cause worth fighting for. Most stories in the genre hinge on the salvation of people, nations or ideologies, but ‘The Train’ is different. It wrestles with the idea that a country’s identity is not only its people but also its art. Yet it does not glorify this ideal without question.


Burt Lancaster, in a performance as rugged as the steel tracks his character fights to sabotage, plays French Resistance leader Labiche, a railwayman with no love for the art in question. Yet, he and his fellow partisans engage in a deadly chess match to thwart the train commandeered by the film’s most compelling figure - Nazi Colonel von Waldheim, played with mesmerizing menace by Paul Scofield.


Waldheim is no ordinary villain. Unlike the cartoonish Nazi brutes of WW2 films, he is cultured, a man who speaks of art with near-religious reverence. For him, the paintings are the essence of civilization itself. His obsession makes him dangerous, but also strangely tragic.


The hardened Labiche is deeply sceptical of the notion that culture is worth more than a man’s life. But as the film unfolds, his actions betray his cynicism. He begins derailing the train’s journey, engaging in a lethal war of wits with von Waldheim. Labiche, for all his pragmatism, cannot bring himself to let the Nazis abscond with the “soul of France.”


Frankenheimer, who took over after Lancaster fired the original director Arthur Penn for making the film ‘too intellectual,’ crafts a masterpiece of tension and realism. The train sequences, filmed with real locomotives, are breathtaking.


François Truffaut once remarke d that war films in black and white feel more authentic, and here, cinematographer Jean Tournier delivers stunning compositions reinforcing the film’s realism. The deep shadows and stark contrasts recall war photography, lending an almost documentary-like immediacy.


Frankenheimer’s dynamic camerawork heightens the film’s relentless momentum. One of the most jaw-dropping sequences - a real train derailment wherein a train loaded with Nazi troops collides with another at full speed - is a visceral reminder of an era when action cinema was built on precision and ingenuity rather than digital trickery.


Beyond the action, there are moments of quiet devastation, none more affecting than Michel Simon’s poignant performance as ‘Papa Boulle,’ the aging railway worker caught in the resistance’s deadly game. Simon, a legendary French actor, imbues Boulle with warmth and weary dignity. In a single, heartbreaking moment, when he naïvely assumes he can outwit the Nazis only to meet a cruel fate, Simon captures the human cost of war.


Lancaster, who performed many of his own stunts, brings a raw physicality to the role. Maurice Jarre’s percussive score adds to the film’s sense of urgency.


The 1960s were a golden era for World War II cinema. Big-budget ‘caper’ epics like ‘The Guns of Navarone’ (1961), ‘The Dirty Dozen’ (1967) and ‘Where Eagles Dare’ (1968) delivered slam-bang action while more cerebral thrillers like ‘The Counterfeit Traitor’ (1962) and ‘The Night of the Generals’ (1967) examined war’s ethical complexities. ‘The Train’ straddles both worlds, delivering heart-pounding thrills while posing difficult questions.


Yet, for all its action, The Train is ultimately a film about values. In a world where art is often dismissed as secondary to survival, its central dilemma remains eerily relevant today. In the film’s haunting final shot, as Labiche’s silent, limping figure walks away from the dead bodies and the undisturbed art masterpieces, the uncomfortable question lingers: What, in the end, is truly worth saving?


Today, when so much action cinema is driven by CGI bombast, ‘The Train’ feels like an artifact from a lost age. It is a film about the fragility of culture, the cost of resistance and the uneasy choices war forces upon those caught in its grasp. It remains, in every sense, a must-watch.

Comments


bottom of page