Nayak in the Classroom: A Before-and-After Study

Twenty-four school students aged 13 to 15 watched Satyajit Ray’s Nayak (1966) and completed the same questionnaire twice: once on the strength of their own viewing, and once after a guided close reading of the film and of Uttam Kumar’s performance. All of them come from affluent, upper-middle class Bengali background staying in the city of Kolkata and studying in an ICSE School with Bengali, their mother tongue, as a Second Language subject. Most of them have heard the name Uttam Kumar, watched his face now that the city is draped with his posters as part of his centenary. Only 8 of them, at 33%, have watched any film of Uttam Kumar before.

The exercise tests a single proposition, whether a structured close reading of Nayak, covering its camera grammar, its dream sequences and above all Uttam Kumar’s modulated performance, will measurably sharpen young viewers’ perception of how the actor builds the star persona and then lets it crack.

The questionnaire has five sections, and it is laid out so that each student marks a “Before Analysis” column and an “After Analysis” column side by side. Sections A and B use a five-point agreement scale (Strongly Agree, Agree, Not Sure, Disagree, Strongly Disagree). Sections C and D use a four-point intensity scale (Very Strongly, Quite Strongly, A Little, Not at all). The final question in D offers five named attitudes towards Arindam.

The questionnaire moves deliberately from the observable star (A) to the concealed man (B), to the technical means that reveal him (C), and finally to the viewer’s own emotional response (D).

The survey workbook tabulates Sections A to D. There is also a Section E that places the performance within Uttam Kumar’s wider work and invites the student to imagine an alternative Arindam. Only 8 of the 24 students had seen Uttam Kumar in another film. Between them they named 10 titles: Dhanyi Meye, Mouchak, Chiriyakhana, Deya Neya, Chadmabeshi, Jhinder Bondi, Sesh Anka, Saptapadi, Antony Firingee and Bhranti Bilas. Several of these are comedies or popular entertainments, which makes the students’ verdict more striking: six of the eight preferred his performance in Nayak, with one vote each for Deya Neya and Sesh Anka. Asked whether another actor could play Arindam better, ten students said that Uttam Kumar was best suited to the role, and six left the question blank. Soumitra Chatterjee, Ray’s other leading man, was the only alternative named more than once, with three mentions. The remaining choices were Tota Roy Choudhury, Ritwik Chakraborty, Emraan Hashmi, Brad Pitt and Charlie Chaplin. These suggest that students cast the role from the stars they know today more than from the demands of the character.

The three Arindams in Nayak

Reading of the film between the two analyses

The film reading aimed to show how Ray progressively dismantled the public image of the superstar to reveal the vulnerable man beneath, through the actor’s body, the camera and the structure of the film.

• A shared register of acting. A note to observe that, in this film, and in his most, Ray’s actors speak in natural rhythms rather than declaiming, and they use pauses, interruptions and unfinished reactions. Even minor characters have a psychology of their own. Ray builds a single register in which the star and the supporting cast belong to the same reality. That prepared the ground for looking at Uttam Kumar as a performer working within a world, not above it.
• The star controls his world. The opening in Arindam’s apartment establishes him as a man who occupies and commands space. The camera follows him. His body is relaxed, economical and assured, and others wait on him, report to him and respond to him. Before the train turns him into an object of observation, the film shows him as a man used to being the centre of his surroundings.
• Three Arindams. The centre of the analysis of performance was Uttam Kumar’s modulation of a single character across three degrees of control:
  • the public Arindam, composed, amused and spatially confident;
  • the private Arindam, slower, introspective and increasingly exposed;
  • the dreaming Arindam, panicked, unstable and physically uncontrolled.

This is the idea most directly tested by Sections B and C of the questionnaire.

• The train as a moving theatre. Narrow corridors and compartments frame bodies. Doors, windows and mirrors become instruments of looking. Passengers watch Arindam, and Arindam watches Aditi. The train was presented as a social machine for observation, in which everyone is at once audience and performer, and so as a metaphor for celebrity itself.
• The dreams and their grammar. The first dream, in which money becomes a landscape and wealth becomes death, attacks Arindam through money and mortality. The later dreams attack him through desire and compromise, bound up with the aspiring actress and the star system. Formally, Ray abandons his realist grammar here. Waking life keeps spatial continuity, but dreams join images by emotional association, because dreams need to make emotional sense, not geographical sense.
• Camera distance. Across the film, compositions in the waking world are controlled and spacious. Under tension, the camera closes in, and in moments of vulnerability faces fill more of the frame. The key movement identified was camera distance: the less control Arindam has, the less visual space he seems to possess.
• Mirrors, choices and the returning mask. Earlier, everyone looked at Arindam. Aditi instead looks at the man behind the star. Her decision to destroy her notes turns heroism from spectacle into an ethical choice. Minor characters act as mirrors against whom Arindam’s character is reflected. At the final arrival the crowd restores the star identity and the mask, in the form of a sunglass, returns.
• The irony of the title. “Nayak” means a sum total of identities: a star, a successful man, a frightened man, a compromised man and a performer returning to public life. Ray never settles on one definition of heroism, so the title becomes a question rather than a description.

How the students’ responses changed

After the analysis, the class moved towards the strongest response on ten of the eleven intensity and agreement items. The one exception was the item on the dreams. Across the seven agreement statements in Sections A and B, “Strongly Agree” answers rose from 72 to 100 of 168 responses (43% to 60%), and “Not Sure” fell from 28 to 14. Across the three items in Section C, “Very Strongly” rose from 33 to 47 of 72 responses, and the single “Not at all” disappeared

Deeper insights from the survey

A. The star we first meet

The students’ response to the public Arindam was already strong before any analysis. Twenty-three of 24 agreed that he is presented as a man used to admiration (A1), and 22 that his walk, posture and speech project power (A2). What the analysis changed was conviction, not recognition: “Strongly Agree” on A1 rose from 11 to 17. The item with most room to move was A3, on Arindam’s calibrated behaviour towards fans, journalists and fellow passengers. Before the analysis, five students were unsure. Afterwards, none were, and agreement rose from 19 to 22. A4, the more subtle observation that Arindam keeps people at a distance even when smiling, was the weakest statement in the section before the analysis (16 agreeing, 6 unsure). It rose to 19 agreeing with only 2 unsure.

One counter-movement needs noting. Before the analysis, Section A drew only two negative responses, both on A4. Afterwards it drew seven, including a “Strongly Disagree” on A2 and two on A3, where there had been none. The aggregate figures cannot show which students moved, but the pattern is consistent with a few students taking the analysis’s thesis, that the star’s confidence is a performance, and then rejecting statements that seemed to describe Arindam as actually powerful and assured. This point is taken up again in the observations.

B. The man behind the star

The largest single shift in the survey is on B1: “As the film progresses, I could see that Arindam is not as confident inside as he appears outside.” Strong agreement rose from 14 to 21, and all 24 students agreed after the analysis. This is the statement closest to the analysis’s central thesis and to the “Three Arindams” slide. Its movement is the clearest evidence that the students absorbed the idea of the performance as controlled modulation.

B2, on the face and eyes saying what Arindam leaves unsaid, rose from 16 to 19 agreeing, with strong agreement up from 11 to 14. Responses stayed more scattered than elsewhere, with three still unsure and two disagreeing.

B3, sympathy for Arindam when he speaks to Aditi about his past, is the outlier of the whole questionnaire. It began lowest (10 agreeing, 8 unsure, 6 disagreeing) and remained lowest (13 agreeing, 6 unsure, 5 disagreeing). The analysis made students more confident that they could see Arindam’s vulnerability. It did far less to make them feel for him.

C. Acting without words

This section most directly measures what the students came to value in Uttam Kumar’s craft, and all three items rose:

• Facial expressions (C1): “Very Strongly” rose from 11 to 17. After the analysis every student chose one of the two strongest options, compared with 22 before.
• Silence and pauses (C2): the biggest movement in the section. “Very Strongly” rose from 8 to 13, the combined strong responses from 17 to 21, and the one “Not at all” disappeared. Before the analysis this was the weakest item in Section C. It is also the technique that is hardest to notice on a first viewing and easiest to point to once named. The slide on the ensemble’s “pauses, interruptions and unfinished reactions” gave the students a vocabulary for it.
• Body language (C3): already high before the analysis (14 “Very Strongly”), and it rose modestly to 17. Like A2, this is a quality the students realized unaided.

D. What did you actually feel?

The dream sequences are the one item where the analysis did not intensify the response. “Very Strongly” disturbed fell from 4 to 2, “Quite Strongly” rose from 11 to 14, and the two students who felt nothing did not change. The overall distribution barely moved: 15 of 24 were strongly or quite strongly disturbed before the analysis, and 16 after. The explanation of dream grammar, with money as landscape and images joined by emotional association, seems to have made the dreams more intelligible without making them more frightening. For a few students it may even have defused their immediate shock.

The final judgement of Arindam moved more:

The class moved away from a neutral, cognitive verdict towards warmer and more personal ones. This is the Section D, and it appears here even though the more specific sympathy item (B3) moved only slightly.

Observations

The proposition is broadly supported, most strongly for perception and least strongly for feeling. On every item about seeing how the performance works (Sections A, B1–B2 and C), the class moved towards stronger endorsement and away from uncertainty. On the items about feeling (B3 and D1), movement was small or reversed. Only the final judgement of Arindam (D2) shows a clear affective shift. A fair summary is that the analysis taught the students to read Uttam Kumar far more effectively than it changed how they felt about Arindam.

The results give a useful map of adolescent spectatorship. Thirteen- to fifteen-year-olds read the star’s outward expression easily, the swagger, the command of space, the charm. The inward one, the pause before a reply, the eyes that contradict the smile, the modulation from public to private Arindam, is what they need to be taught to see. That is a strong case for this kind of close reading in the classroom, and it is also a precise description of what makes Uttam Kumar’s work in Nayak distinctive.

Students of this age may recognize Arindam’s crisis without identifying with a successful, self-absorbed adult’s regret. Yet the end-of-film shift (no one disliking Arindam, and “Liked him” and “Felt sorry for him” rising together) shows that the analysis did soften judgement, even if it did not produce the specific sympathy B3 describes.

Notes on survey limitations

• The data are aggregated, not paired. The workbook records totals for each response, not each student’s before and after answers.
• Students completed the “After” column on the same sheet, besides their own “Before” answers and immediately after my presentation. Both conditions tend to inflate agreement: students may want to show that they have learned, and to agree with me. A delayed post-test a week later, or a comparison group that watches the film and answers twice without the analysis, would separate learning from immediate effects.
• With 24 students, a single student is about four percentage points. Shifts of one or two students on an item should not be over-read. A larger sample size could have revealed a different trend.

Conclusion

The richest evidence is in the untabulated answers. The open questions in Section D (how did the acting contribute? why did you choose this response?) and all of Section E (other Uttam Kumar films, preferred performance, an alternative actor for Arindam) are where students explain their thinking in their own words. Coding these answers were difficult and hence left out from quantification.

Yet, within its modest scope and ambition, the exercise shows that a single, well-structured close reading can move a class of young teenagers from recognizing a film star to understanding a performance. They were exposed to seeing the silences, the eyes and the controlled collapse of the public self that make Uttam Kumar’s Arindam more than a portrait of celebrity. What the analysis did not do and perhaps cannot be expected to do in one session, is make them feel Arindam’s loneliness as their own. The film’s closing irony, that the mask returns once the crowd reappears, may be a lesson that will take them even longer to learn.

Courtesy: The graphical representation of shift in student response before and after the film reading was done by AI based on the tabulated data from the questionnaire.

Click Uttam Kumar@100

for Critiques, Reviews, Interviews

— The Centenary Tribute Series