How often do we face the brilliant confusion of not being able to tell the fiction from reality? Every time I watch Ray's films, I am faced with this bewilderment - never have I related so much of myself to one film maker's portrayals. I have grown up watching them, and each film, at different ages, has revealed something new to me. Satyajit Ray, as the cliché goes, ushered modernity into Indian cinema, from where it began to command respect as a form of artistic expression. Clearly, it was a breakthrough with a crucial shift to the inner world, or what we call psychological realism. Cinema, for Ray, was the representation in aesthetic terms, the spirit of the place and time, which however in the broader perspective came to imply much more. Each film is almost like a journey - an exploration of the relationship of the cinematic mode to fiction, history and time.
While his films are primarily set against the Bengali milieu, they cut across many cultures. Being a product of East-West fusion, we find in his films the refection of his 'plurality of selves', involving a curious struggle to make sense of his being there, in a post-colonial society. It is often said that Ray sums up the entire 19th century ethos of the place; certainly, there is nothing wrong in the claim. While his modern perspective was much due to him being brought up in a cosmopolitan culture, he was profoundly influenced by Italian neorealism, Renoir, Mozart, Bonnard and Cartier-Bresson. And one central theme in most of his films is the individual striving to define oneself in relation to the forces transforming the world and the way a composite culture is formed in its confrontation with modernity.
However, I personally feel it is the sheer authenticity of the characters and form which constitute the 'Rayness' of Ray. "The raw material of the cinema is life itself", Ray would say. He could bring out the best out of his actors. This exploration of the truth of human behavior and very, very subtle emotions is what makes us feel so strongly for Bishwambhar Roy of Jalshaghar, or Charu of Charulata or Apu of the Trilogy. The grief of Apu at one level becomes my very own, the sudden friendship in Nayak doesn't seem unfamiliar, the unease at the arrival of a stranger in Aguntuk is like a chapter from our daily life and we couldn't help relating ourselves to the four friends of Aranyer Din-Raatri. Ray's deep belief in his own culture wasn't exclusive; his characters are governed by certain things which are cross-cultural, wherein lay Ray's conviction of 'universal essence' of man within the context in which he lives. The portrayal of the subtle nuances of these fundamentals and other filaments of emotion make Siddhartha of Pratidwandi or Amitabha of Kaalpurush, who are defined in the end by a profound sense of loss and guilt, so compelling. But Ray refused to lose faith in man and his films are pervaded by this optimism, which sometimes go unnoticed. His characters, in some way or the other, eventually tend to turn inward from the 'public' to the 'private' space, which reinforces his belief in the triumph of integrity and justice.
The films are not only creative expressions of Ray, but also instances of how Ray represented the distinctive ethos of each film in person. He, while making each film, would be present as the 'other' character, which provided the major drive for the dynamism of his cinematic tone. He would do everything on his own - be it music, designing, editing and even the camera work (post-Charulata films) - in other words, each film was his genius, in every aspect, put together. By this virtue, "he became the film itself". Infact, it was this deep involvement of a Master in his work which would turn every minor object into a well defined character - the mirror in Pratidwandi, the Opra-glasses in Charulata, the Train in Nayak and so on. His films, in the last analysis, deal with Bengalis in particular, but when seen in a broader spectrum, questions some basic aspects faced by every human being while striving to live in a community.
For The Reel; Written By: Saumyashree Ghosh (student of History, UG- III, Jadavpur University) (www.theselfspeaks.blogspot.com)
While his films are primarily set against the Bengali milieu, they cut across many cultures. Being a product of East-West fusion, we find in his films the refection of his 'plurality of selves', involving a curious struggle to make sense of his being there, in a post-colonial society. It is often said that Ray sums up the entire 19th century ethos of the place; certainly, there is nothing wrong in the claim. While his modern perspective was much due to him being brought up in a cosmopolitan culture, he was profoundly influenced by Italian neorealism, Renoir, Mozart, Bonnard and Cartier-Bresson. And one central theme in most of his films is the individual striving to define oneself in relation to the forces transforming the world and the way a composite culture is formed in its confrontation with modernity.
However, I personally feel it is the sheer authenticity of the characters and form which constitute the 'Rayness' of Ray. "The raw material of the cinema is life itself", Ray would say. He could bring out the best out of his actors. This exploration of the truth of human behavior and very, very subtle emotions is what makes us feel so strongly for Bishwambhar Roy of Jalshaghar, or Charu of Charulata or Apu of the Trilogy. The grief of Apu at one level becomes my very own, the sudden friendship in Nayak doesn't seem unfamiliar, the unease at the arrival of a stranger in Aguntuk is like a chapter from our daily life and we couldn't help relating ourselves to the four friends of Aranyer Din-Raatri. Ray's deep belief in his own culture wasn't exclusive; his characters are governed by certain things which are cross-cultural, wherein lay Ray's conviction of 'universal essence' of man within the context in which he lives. The portrayal of the subtle nuances of these fundamentals and other filaments of emotion make Siddhartha of Pratidwandi or Amitabha of Kaalpurush, who are defined in the end by a profound sense of loss and guilt, so compelling. But Ray refused to lose faith in man and his films are pervaded by this optimism, which sometimes go unnoticed. His characters, in some way or the other, eventually tend to turn inward from the 'public' to the 'private' space, which reinforces his belief in the triumph of integrity and justice.
The films are not only creative expressions of Ray, but also instances of how Ray represented the distinctive ethos of each film in person. He, while making each film, would be present as the 'other' character, which provided the major drive for the dynamism of his cinematic tone. He would do everything on his own - be it music, designing, editing and even the camera work (post-Charulata films) - in other words, each film was his genius, in every aspect, put together. By this virtue, "he became the film itself". Infact, it was this deep involvement of a Master in his work which would turn every minor object into a well defined character - the mirror in Pratidwandi, the Opra-glasses in Charulata, the Train in Nayak and so on. His films, in the last analysis, deal with Bengalis in particular, but when seen in a broader spectrum, questions some basic aspects faced by every human being while striving to live in a community.
For The Reel; Written By: Saumyashree Ghosh (student of History, UG- III, Jadavpur University) (www.theselfspeaks.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment
WE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU, POST COMMENTS TO TELL US WHAT YOU THOUGHT OF THIS ARTICLE,
Finding it difficult to post comments ??
type your comment in white box below and under "Comment as" Drop down list, either:
1. select "Anonymous"
OR
2. If you are logged into Google account, select your Google account from the drop-down list