{"id":2563,"date":"2016-01-08T10:51:30","date_gmt":"2016-01-08T05:21:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/?p=2563"},"modified":"2020-07-16T22:16:24","modified_gmt":"2020-07-16T16:46:24","slug":"bimal-roy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/bimal-roy\/","title":{"rendered":"Bimal Roy: The Eastern Mystic Who Made Films"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Bimal<\/a>

Bimal Roy: The Man Who Spoke in Pictures<\/p><\/div>\n

With his first directorial essay – Udayer Pathey<\/em> – Bimal Roy brought a paradigm shift in film making. His effort was refreshingly free from the mire of melodrama that hitherto characterized Indian films. His characters on screen were so true to life that the audience instantly related to them or empathized with them.<\/p>\n

Each of his characters had the shades of good and bad.\u00a0 There was no contrived divinity or villainy in them.\u00a0 Perhaps for the sole exception of Ugra Narayan (Pran in Madhumati<\/em>), none of his other films had a villain out of the ordinary.\u00a0 But, then, Madhumati<\/em>, qualifies as a stand-alone effort of Roy, made with quasi-commercial intent, to eventually bolster the finances of the Bimal Roy Productions.<\/p>\n

Yet, unlike the films of the parallel cinema of the later years, which apparently were made with connoisseurs in view, Roy\u2019s films easily related to the mainstream cinema and succeeded too. There could be several reasons for this. One reason that one can discern is that his films refrained from preaching even as they handled problems of such serious dimension as the abuse and exploitation of farmers (Do Bigha Zameen<\/em>) or the untouchability (Sujata<\/em>). Roy instead left the questions to the conscience of the viewers. Parakh<\/em>, a beautiful movie, tended to, even if just, play up the preaching part.\u00a0 Perhaps, this was one reason that the film failed to make the desired box office impact.<\/p>\n

Another reason, perhaps more important, is the fact that his films were never prosaic \u2013 never a third party handling of the story and its realities which is so typical in a documentary film. Roy, on the other hand, seemed to be directing his characters from within them and not from without. He appeared subsumed in each character, giving him \/ her no choice but to express as required. Dilip Kumar became synonym for Devdas<\/em> because the Master took charge of him, to take him forward. Before Devdas<\/em>, Dilip would pass only as a good actor but not the one great.<\/p>\n

\"Bimal

Bimal Roy directing Suchitra Sen and Dilip Kumar for Devdas (Pic: From the collections of SMM Ausaja)<\/p><\/div>\n

Roy\u2019s involvement in his characters made his films poetry on celluloid.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A third reason could be, and again an important one, that Roy\u2019s realism did not shun music.\u00a0 In fact, Roy brought to bear on his films the natural music proclivity of an easterner \u2013 almost as an existential aspect.<\/p>\n

Roy\u2019s films have an exceptional balance of literature and music. But what distinguished him from the others is the fact that his musical scores never appeared interpolated or grafted in the general run of the story.\u00a0 In fact, each score furthered the story or heightened the impact of an episode, or alluded to the circumstances of the character \u2013 his \/ her angst, existential predicament or elation.<\/p>\n

Roy was also not unduly enamoured with the idea of his lead characters lip-syncing the scores. No wonder therefore that some of the most meaningful and also popular songs are either in the background or filmed on relatively less known artistes. Arguably the best lullaby in Hindi films \u2013 Aa ja ri nindiya<\/em> (Do Bigha Zameen<\/em>) \u2013 is lip-synced by Meena Kumari in a guest appearance.<\/p>\n

Aa ja ri nindiya<\/strong><\/em> (Do Bigha Zamin<\/em>, 1953)<\/span>
\nSalil Chowdhury \/ Shailendra \/ Lata Mangeshkar, Chorus<\/span><\/p>\n