{"id":9002,"date":"2024-10-12T06:30:29","date_gmt":"2024-10-12T01:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/?p=9002"},"modified":"2024-10-12T08:58:19","modified_gmt":"2024-10-12T03:28:19","slug":"the-cinema-of-tapan-sinha-literary-synthesis-and-cinematic-demarcation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/learningandcreativity.com\/silhouette\/the-cinema-of-tapan-sinha-literary-synthesis-and-cinematic-demarcation\/","title":{"rendered":"The Cinema of Tapan Sinha \u2014 Literary Synthesis and Cinematic Demarcation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Ankush\"

Booklet cover of Ankush<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Tapan Sinha\u2019s active film life spanned over 46 years (1954-2000), with an odd 42 films to his credit, which Includes repeat making of his two films in the Hindi language.<\/p>\n

During his creative life, Tapan Sinha earned recognition. His films had a niche market in West Bengal, which helped him to reach out to Bollywood stars later in his career. His films were recognised by his name, instead of stars or cinema-friendly novelists. Significantly, the recognition also earned him numerous film awards – twenty of his films earned him both national awards, BFJA and Filmfare awards while nine of them earned international ones.<\/p>\n

In 1953, when Sinha was shooting for very first film Ankush<\/em>, Bengali cinema was dominated by the novels of Sarat Chandra Chatterjee and the phenomenal rise of Uttam Kumar and Suchitra Sen. By then, the \u2018Satyajit Ray event\u2019 was yet to happen. \u00a0Both Mrinal Sen and Ritwik Ghatak were struggling to discover their specific voices. Perhaps, the only exceptions were Bimal Ray, Ajay Kar, Asit Sen, or a group of filmmakers under the banner of \u2018Agradoot\u2019 and \u2018Agragami.\u2019 Bimal Ray incidentally mentored Tapan Sinha in his formative phase but very soon shifted to Bombay.<\/p>\n

The recognisable stature of Tapan Sinha continued even after the rise of the triumvirate, Ray-Ghatak – Sen. His rise as a film director was not backed by mindless, entertainment-hungry mass, but majorly by educated middle-class with refined tastes for literature.<\/p>\n

It may sound paradoxical, why was Tapan Sinha deprived of film society attention? Why is there so less critical analysis of his films?<\/p>\n

\"Tapan

Tapan Sinha and Arundhati Devi<\/p><\/div>\n

Sinha was an avid lover of literature and songs of Rabindranath Tagore. His courtship and marriage with Arundhati Devi, who also acted in five of his films, strengthened his passion for Tagore. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Arundhati, herself being a good singer, was brought up at Vishwa Bharati, Shantiniketan in the presence of Tagore himself.<\/p>\n

In a documentary film made on him by Raja Sen, Tapan mentioned about two kinds of film makers \u2014 members of the first kind make films for their target audience while members of the second kind make personal films primarily for themselves. \u00a0Consciously Tapan belonged to the first category. As a result, while he adopted good literature for his films, he also had to stick to simple and linear storytelling narrative, in line with Hollywood and British films. \u00a0His specific love for Bengali literature instilled a kind of \u201cliterariness\u201d and \u201cBengali-ness\u201d in his films. These two facets brought him closer to the educated middleclass, for whom cinema was a pictorial translation of the same original literature, keeping the original spirit intact. Good acting was other part of their expectation. But, was Sinha very different from his other colleagues in catering to above?<\/p>\n

Till the \u201850s there was a prevalent intellectual perception that cinema was a shallow entertainer. At that time Tapan Sinha selected a very unconventional story for his very first film Ankush<\/em>, way back in 1953. Works of Narayan Gangopadhyay, notable author was never explored for film adaptations till then. Gangopadhyay was well-known as a teacher and scholar of Bengali literature and primarily as a writer for children. But he also penned quite a few short stories and novels for adults, The short story \u2018Sainik\u2019 was scripted and adapted to a full-length film by Sinha, which evolved around, one Elephant, named Neel Bahadur belonging to a zamindar, Indra Chowdhury. Keeping Neel Bahadur at the centre, the story obliquely portrayed a change in feudal epoch. It was in similar lines with Jalsaghar<\/em>, a film made by Satyajit Ray in 1958 based on a novel by Tarashankar Bandyopadhyay with the same name. In both of them, an elephant was placed in contrast with a motor car, to symbolise a sweeping change of time with tragic inevitability. From his very first film, in his choice of diverse subjects Sinha would make his mark differently from some of other mainstream directors, who were otherwise equally adept in film craft and story-telling.<\/p>\n

\"Film

Film booklet cover of Hansuli Banker Upakatha<\/em> (Source – Sounak Gupta)<\/p><\/div>\n

Till 1967, Sinha picked up works of Rabindranath Tagore thrice, but his selection dealt with unconventional human relations. He borrowed from another great novelist, Tarashankar Bandopadhyay but only for once, for Hansuli Banker Upakatha<\/em>, which was a rural saga with epical proportions, handling migration, refugee and complex social relations under shaking socio-economical fabric. For rest of his films, Sinha never depended on classical authors, but chose either contemporary writers viz. Ramapada Chowdhury and Kalkut (Samaresh Bose), or the established ones whom he introduced to cinema for first time like Jarasandha, Saradindu Bandyopadhyay or Banaphool. In contrast, Satyajit Ray banked heavily on established and classic literatures by Bibhuti Bhushan Bandyopadhyay (thrice), Parashuram (twice), Tarashankar Bandyopadhyay (twice), apart from adopting Tagore five times.<\/p>\n

One of the major factors, which made Tapan Sinha\u2019s cinema unique was his selection of unconventional literary sources. This offered a refreshing experience for his target audience almost every single time. But was his cinema only about retelling a literature in the mould of popular cinematic style and fashion? The answer to his probably will be both a \u2018yes\u2019 and a \u2018no\u2019. When a literature is transcribed into a film, the intent of a director broadly falls under any or all of the following categories:<\/p>\n

    \n
  • A few elements or key moments of a literary work is used in the film as the main plot which further develops in the film to aspects not covered in the literary work.<\/li>\n
  • The film is an interpretation of a director\u2019s reading of a literary work.<\/li>\n
  • Films that literally reproduce the extracts and essence from the literary work in the form of dialogues, mostly used in the original literary work itself.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

     <\/p>\n

    While Tapan Sinha is often bracketed with Satyajit Ray, because both of them depended heavily on literature for their major films, a quick comparison may help to understand their differences. In case of Satyajit Ray, his films were under the types of both 1 and 2.\u00a0 In case of Sinha, he remained more with 2 and 3.<\/p>\n

    \"Film

    Film booklet cover of Kabuliwala<\/em> (Pic – Sounak Gupta)<\/p><\/div>\n

    In his fourth film Kabuliwala<\/em> (1957), which was also his first brushing with a Tagore short story, we may observe a kind of literary pull on him, in the long opening sequence of 8 minutes, introducing Rahmat, the Afghan protagonist. A long verbal commentary was used about Rahamat, his home with a visual display of long Afghan terrain and camel rides. It is to be noted that in the original 7-page story, Tagore had not painted a clear picture of Rahamat\u2019s past. From few hints of the original story, Sinha had to include such a long introduction for the sake of establishing his prime character before unfolding the story in a linear progression. But this portion appears to be with full of literary flourish and stylised words, reminding us of Tagore\u2019s writing styles. This literariness however, dissolved into filmic expressionism, when Mini, the child and Rahamat, the Afghan Kabuliwala started to form a loving bond in the city of Calcutta. Similar literary approach could be traced in portions of \u2018two shots\u2019 (shots comprising of two persons in mid close up within a frame), which are a little static and theatrical. In fact, the makeup of Chhabi Biswas, the actor in the role of Rahamat was also poor and theatrical. At many sequences, art direction and cinematography (sharp shadows on the wall behind) are also theatrical. Both Satyajit Ray and Raj Kapoor noticed such technical snags of Kabuliwala <\/em>and conveyed the same to Sinha who agreed with them.<\/p>\n

    In 1960 Sinha filmed Kshudhita Pashan<\/em> and in 1965, Atithi<\/em>. In both the films, the literary pull reduced where we observe a significant rise in cinematographic opulence, rhythmic fluidity in shot divisions, interspersed with passages of silence. Face, eyes and gaze were used more conspicuously. \u2018Kshudhita Pashan\u2019<\/em>, a short story comprising 19 pages was written by Tagore in 1896. It is a ghost story, revolving around a young Iranian lady at its centre. She was a victim of dacoits and brought to a harem for a Badsha. An old palace, its ruins, dark stony corridors and pillars bear the history of torment of the lady and her cry for getting free. A young Bengali tax collector visited the palace and was gradually pulled and charmed by certain invisible power, to land in the past era and dissolve into its time. Tagore narrated the story with his embellished words, created a magic reality to match with the opulence and grace of a bygone era.<\/p>\n

    While making the film, Sinha majorly followed Tagore\u2019s description of the palace, it\u2019s mystique surrounding and recreated a few key moments with nuanced ambience through his art director Suniti Mitra. In his memoir, Sinha recalls, when he was facing difficulty to shoot the night scenes inside the actual palace and shared the concern with Satyajit Ray, the later advised Sinha to create a miniature of palace interiors and helped him with a sketch. The silent face of the Iranian young lady, subtle change in her eyes captured in mid-close up, portrayed beautifully by Arundhati Devi, heightened the cinematic moments with a lot of sensitivity. However, notwithstanding an opulence of so many cinematic triumphs, there is one moment, when the Tax Collector was walking through a dark corridor, he was listening to a Thumri, Kaise kate rajani, mere sajani<\/em>\u00a0in Raaga Bageshri as if pouring in from the past. But suddenly the Hindustani Thumri dissolved into a Tagore Song \u2014\u00a0Je raate more duarguli bhanglo jhore, Janina go tumi ele amar ghore<\/em> also based on the same raga (Bageshri). Immediately after this song, the protagonist saw the Iranian lady, standing near a pillar. This appears to be a literary pull to predict what immediately was going to happen. Two years later, Satyajit Ray also adopted one ghost story of Tagore named \u2018Monihara\u2019. In content, mood and expression, the two films were different. But one striking similarity may surprise us today. Both of them used a faint and subtle sound of \u2018ghungroo\u2019 (ankle Bells used by Indian dancers), to indicate arrival of the respective mystique ladies. In fact, Ray used this sound in the title sequence of Monihara<\/em>. Sinha used this soundscape before Ray.<\/p>\n

    Kaise kate rajani<\/strong><\/em> (Kshudhita Pashan<\/em>, 1960) Ustad Ali Akbar Khan \/ Traditional \/ Ustad Amir Khan and Pratima Banerjee<\/span><\/p>\n