{"id":877,"date":"2015-05-02T00:00:05","date_gmt":"2015-05-02T00:00:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/?p=877"},"modified":"2020-05-02T08:00:47","modified_gmt":"2020-05-02T02:30:47","slug":"gaston-roberge-satyajit-ray-essays","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/gaston-roberge-satyajit-ray-essays\/","title":{"rendered":"‘Illuminating Ray’ A Critique on Gaston Roberge\u2019s Satyajit Ray: Essays (1970-2005)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Jana

Jana-Aranya is a great film because its director, notwithstanding his own moral viewpoint, allows even his most reprehensible characters to speak freely and argue their case.<\/p><\/div>\n

A lot has been written on Satyajit Ray and his work but well-informed, respectful but objective criticism remains hard to find. The time is more than ripe for mature, thoroughgoing reassessments of Ray\u2019s cinema \u2013 and, for that matter, his literary work \u2013 but despite occasional interesting efforts in this direction, the overall picture is bleaker than one would expect. Gaston Roberge\u2019s collection of essays comes, therefore, like a breath of fresh air. Roberge knew Ray very well and has the most profound respect for the man as well as for his work. But he does not allow that admiration to interfere with his critical faculties. Nor does he permit his prose to be obscured by \u201cTheory,\u201d although it is clear that his understanding of film theory is solid. Above all, he thinks for himself and does not necessarily accept Ray\u2019s views of his own work as definitive. Unlike the majority of Western (and even some Indian) admirers of Ray\u2019s work, Roberge knows Bengal and Kolkata intimately and this allows him to address Ray\u2019s work from inside as well as outside. Written over three decades, the essays undoubtedly reflect the diversity of circumstances in which they were written, but they are nonetheless united by this dual perspective. Roberge calls his collection \u201ca homage to Satyajit Ray\u201d \u2013 it is that of course, but it is also much more.<\/p>\n

The earliest essay in the collection \u2013 a critique of Pratidwandi<\/em> written at the time of the film\u2019s release in 1971 \u2013 illustrates my point clearly. Ray\u2019s extraordinary Calcutta films have not attracted a fraction of the analysis devoted to his early work. Western critics have tended, with the exception of Andrew Robinson and one or two others, to underestimate their qualities; at home, they were often dismissed at the time as politically timid and have almost been forgotten of late. Roberge\u2019s essay on Pratidwandi<\/em> makes many illuminating remarks on the structure and style of the film, but it is even more perceptive on the moral dimensions of the film. Roberge argues that the film\u2019s funamental concern is not with the political turmoil of Calcutta in the 70s or with a young man\u2019s quest for employment. Rather, Ray tells the story of a socially detached young man beginning to develop a sense of realism and social commitment. I do not agree entirely with this analysis \u2013 I think Ray portrayed Siddhartha as an instinctive individualist lost in the maelstrom of politics and economic despair \u2013 but it is marvellous to find a critic wrestling with the film\u2019s deeper implications. Some of Roberge\u2019s strictures on the film are well-taken. Siddhartha is definitely too old (25) for the story, he does speak improbably good English, and it is hard to believe that he does not even try to earn some money by the Bengali youth\u2019s traditional occupation of \u201ctuitioni\u201d.<\/p>\n

\"Seemabaddha\"

Whether it is Indranath in Kanchanjanga or Shyamlendu in Seemabaddha or Natabar Mitter in Jana-Aranya, their very freedom to expound their beliefs makes them reveal their moral worthlessness to the viewer.<\/p><\/div>\n

Paired with this stimulating essay is a piece on Jana-Aranya<\/em>, another remarkable film that rarely gets its due. Although this essay is much briefer, it still makes important points about the film\u2019s technical brilliance as well as the ethical concerns that Ray sought to highlight. Ray was always interested in moral dilemmas and nowhere more so than in his urban films. Roberge asserts that \u201cintegrity \u2013 aesthetic and ethical \u2013 is the theme that inspires and informs the whole work of Ray.\u201d This is entirely right and one wishes other critics would pay more attention to this aspect of Ray\u2019s work. To label him a \u201chumanist,\u201d as so many Western scholars tend to do, is pointless unless we appreciate the steely moral core that underlies Ray\u2019s all-embracing \u2013 but never all-forgiving \u2013 interest in humanity. True, his films do not have \u2018conventional\u2019 villains (even though his stories do aplenty) and true, even the most negative characters are developed fully. But whether it is Indranath in Kanchanjanga<\/em> or Shyamlendu in Seemabaddha<\/em> or Natabar Mitter in Jana-Aranya<\/em>, their very freedom to expound their beliefs makes them reveal their moral worthlessness to the viewer. One may or may not agree with Ray\u2019s ethical principles and one may not like the style in which he presents moral dilemmas, but to portray him as a serene relativist is just plain wrong. Everyone has his reasons in Ray\u2019s films \u2013 but all reasons are not equal.<\/p>\n

\"Sakha

The characters in Shakha-Prosakha, however, have been judged before they are condemned \u2013 they are not given much opportunity to express themselves or their motivations.<\/p><\/div>\n

These moral preoccupations, of course, came to the fore in Ray\u2019s last three films, which Roberge loves for their humanity and directness. I am not sure I can agree. \u201cI have no wish to belittle content,\u201d Ray himself declared in his hard-hitting Amal Bhattacharjee Memorial Lecture in 1982, \u201cbut we must remember that the lousiest of films have been made on the loftiest of themes. That a director says all the right things is in itself no guarantee of artistry. At best it is a reflection of his attitude, or ideology \u2026 it is the manner of saying which indicates the artist.\u201d Jana-Aranya<\/em> is a great film because its director, notwithstanding his own moral viewpoint, allows even his most reprehensible characters to speak freely and argue their case. The characters in Shakha-Prosakha<\/em>, however, have been judged before they are condemned \u2013 they are not given much opportunity to express themselves or their motivations. Even the details of their corrupt dealings are left vague. Nor does this late film have any of the fluid imagery of Jana-Aranya<\/em>, its wonderful rhythm, its quicksilver dialogue, or its ferocious wit. It is too grave, too leaden to get under the viewer\u2019s skin whereas Jana-Aranya<\/em> sears one for ever because it makes its points with such deadly lightness of touch. In Agantuk<\/em>, of course, Ray returned at least partially to form, and I happily agree with everything Roberge says about the depth and urgency of Ray\u2019s questions on civilization and their links with Tagore\u2019s Crisis in Civilization<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The analysis of Ray\u2019s films is not the sole purpose of this collection, nor is it the major purpose. As Roberge himself points out, he deals with only about a dozen of Ray\u2019s thirty-odd films. Instead of analyzing every film that Ray ever made, Roberge explores the broader contexts of Ray\u2019s career. The essay on foreign reviews of Ray\u2019s later films, for instance, addresses a crucial theme and is alone worth the price of the book. Every critic, every biographer, every fan has long been aware of the international fascination with Ray. Nobody, however, has ever taken the trouble to read a large sample of Western reviews closely and analyze their ideological and cultural presuppositions. Nobody, that is, except Roberge. Based on an extensive trawl of American and British reviews, the essay shows how superficial, vapid and condescending some of the Western reactions were.<\/p>\n

It is a boon to all Ray scholars that this remarkable essay, first published in a festival souvenir in 1979, has at last become easily accessible. Similarly valuable is the long interview with Ray on script writing, in which Ray spells out his approach to literary sources with a clarity and forthrightness that one does not find in his other statements on this topic. Even Ray\u2019s famous essay justifying deviations from the original in Charulata<\/em> (available in Bishoy Chalachchitra<\/em>)<\/span> is not quite this candid in acknowledging that many changes are not demanded so much by the grammar of film-making as by the ideological preferences of the \u2018film-maker\u2019.<\/p>\n

Another admirable feature of Roberge\u2019s collection is the emphasis on Ray\u2019s contributions to film culture and film education. Although Ray was one of the founders of the Calcutta Film Society, his later efforts to spread knowledge and appreciation of cinema have not been adequately appreciated by biographers and critics. Apart from the personal influence he had on countless individuals in educating them on the cinema, Ray was a strong supporter of initiatives and institutions like Roberge\u2019s own Chitra Bani. Those of us who grew up in Kolkata in the 1980s remember Chitra Bani as one of the most interesting features on the city\u2019s cultural skyline and in his essays, Roberge reveals the extent to which Ray was an enthusiastic supporter of the project. He also rightly castigates the film societies for not being of any help to Ray when he needed them most. Three other essays show how Ray\u2019s films can be used in teaching the fundamentals of film-making and film theory \u2013 film educators should find these inspiring.<\/p>\n

This collection, in short, is the best introduction to Ray that I can think of. Instead of droning on about Ray\u2019s greatness, his polymathic abilities or his humanism, Roberge actually shows us through clear, succinct and objective analyses what made Ray such a remarkable artist and human being. The essays do not deal with everything, or even with every important aspect of Ray\u2019s creativity. But whatever they do deal with is essential for understanding Ray, his films and their larger contexts. \u201cYou don\u2019t have to have too many elements in a film, but whatever you do, they must be the right elements,\u201d Jean Renoir had told the young Satyajit Ray. Whether consciously or instinctively, Roberge has followed that precept in his essays, and what better precept could there be for a film-maker or critic?<\/p>\n

(All pictures used in this article are courtesy the Internet)<\/em><\/span> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ray\u2019s extraordinary Calcutta films have not attracted a fraction of the analysis devoted to his early work. Western critics have tended, with the exception of Andrew Robinson and one or two others, to underestimate their qualities; at home, they were often dismissed at the time as politically timid and have almost been forgotten of late. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":682,"featured_media":985,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[424,2277,14],"tags":[441,37,38,443,28,442],"class_list":["post-877","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-indian-cinema-retrospectives","category-ray100","category-volume-6","tag-gaston-roberge","tag-jana-aranya","tag-pratidwandi","tag-sakha-prasakha","tag-satyajit-ray","tag-seemabaddha"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/877","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/682"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=877"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/877\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/985"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=877"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=877"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=877"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}