Dhritiman Chaterji: We need criticism, not hagiography

[ad_1]

Dhritiman Chaterji burst onto the screen as iconic youngster Siddhartha Chaudhuri in Satyajit Rays Pratidwandi (1970), the first in the Calcutta trilogy. Fifty-one years later, Rays’ socio-political message remains as strong today as it was when the films were first shown. In a conversation with Suhrid Sankar Chattopadhyay, Dhritiman Chaterji spoke at length about the relevance of rays in today’s world and the need for serious critical research on it, rather than limiting itself to hagiography. Besides Pratidwandi, Chaterji also starred in two of Rays’ later films, Ganashatru (1989) and Agantuk (1991). Movies like Pratidwandi and Ganashatru are as much a statement against the terrible politics that we are going through now, the politics of communalism, authoritarianism, majoritarianism and narrow and semi-literate nationalism, he said. Extracts:

When the Calcutta trilogy [Pratidwandi, 1970; Seemabaddha, 1971; and Jana Aranya, 1975] happened 50 years ago, many people said that Satyajit Ray had become openly political; but what we often forget is that Ray had just entered what is called middle age in his life, and was, in a sense, straddling both the world of youthful enthusiasm and the realm of middle-aged reflections. He was going to be 50 when he made Pratidwandi. Even though we often think of the Calcutta movies as a reaction to what was going on in the outside world, in my opinion, those movies had as much to do with what was going on with Ray when he was old. If he had done Pratidwandi at a later stage in his life when he was doing Ganashatru, Sakha Prasakha [1990] and Agantuk, I think we would have had a totally different genre of film.

But even 51 years after its first screening, I find that cinematically Pratidwandi has not aged at all, nor has it become dated in its theme. The concerns expressed are still relevant today. I found a young audience very enthusiastic about the scene where we talk about Vietnam. As they listen to this conversation, they use it as a point of reference for other issues, be it Donald Trump, Afghanistan or the CAA. [Citizenship (Amendment) Act] and the NRC [National Register of Citizens] commotion here. Films like Pratidwandi and Ganashatru are as much a declaration against the terrible politics that we are going through now, the politics of communitarianism, authoritarianism, majoritarianism, narrow and semi-literate nationalism. One wonders in these difficult times why contemporary filmmakers are not as politically articulated as the generation of Ray, Ritwik Ghatak and Mrinal Sen.

Even now, often in the round tables, I hear young people say that they just saw Pratidwandi and that they found it so relevant even after so many years. It’s not just because of the political content; it is relevant because the lack of purpose, confusion, indecision of young protagonist Siddharta seems so vital, real and timeless. The defining characteristic of Siddhartha is retreat, not confrontation. It comes out best in this scene where the driver of an expensive car is beaten up and Siddhartha rushes to participate in the beating as well, but in the end he doesn’t land a single blow. As an actor I tried to step into the scene, but I really couldn’t make my way through the crowd so I gave up. Besides, I still haven’t read the book.

I remember back when the so-called Calcutta trilogy was being made, a book came out containing a series of very high quality writings on the Rays films. [Professor] Supriya Chaudhuri had written an article on Pratidwandi, in which she made an interesting observation that the film was Ray responding to a lot of criticism directed at him at that time that he was unwilling to face contemporary reality. For example, magazines like Now, which was published by Samar Sen, suggested that Rays’ politics were lukewarm, especially compared to films by Mrinal Sens and Ritwik Ghataks. What Ray did in the three films of the Calcutta trilogy was a complete change from his previous films in terms of content and style. In fact, at Pratidwandi, Ray used techniques normally associated with Mrinal Senthe’s handheld camera, jump cuts, freezes, etc. People weren’t expecting it because Ray was more associated with the classic story mode. In other words, Satyajit Ray was associated in everyone’s mind with Rabindranath Tagore, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan.

A MORE CRITICAL APPROACH

There is a lot that has been written about Ray, but there has been very little criticism of his works, just as there has been very little criticism of Rabindranath Tagore. Granted, he had faced criticism from the start, as I mentioned earlier, but in the Bengali spirit, Ray is on the same level as Tagore. There was a hagiography, but no real biography. If Ray is to remain relevant, it’s not another book of praise that’s required, but critical writing and review in the truest sense. Otherwise, it will be difficult to keep young people interested. Just as Shakespeare, or for that matter Sherlock Holmes, managed to remain popular and relevant, so too has Ray.

To a certain extent, it started with the recent Netflix series on the history of Rays. There were four stories from three directors. Personally, I loved one of them; but it was definitely a step in the right direction to preserve Rays’ legacy. In addition, many plans have been made for the centenary celebrations, both by local organizations like the Ray Society and the Ministry of Culture, but unfortunately nothing could have happened due to the pandemic situation. It’s a shame, because there is a need for people to have the opportunity to see Rays movies again. While everything is available to people online, sometimes a nudge in the right direction is needed as well.

An interesting aspect of Rays’ choice of literature for making a film was that he preferred to fall back on older works, although the Calcutta trilogy films were based on contemporary books. In 1982, Ray gave the Amal Bhattacharya Memorial Lecture, which I attended. It was absolutely fascinating. One of the topics covered was the cinematic adaptability of contemporary Bengali literature, and Ray felt that much of contemporary Bengali literature was not adaptable due to its lack of physical detail. He believed that cinema was not created from abstract ideas. This led to an extended game between Ray and Buddhadeb Guha [popular Bengali author who passed away in 2021] and it was about to get nasty with the legals etc. But the point is, Ray believed in the here and now and the simple things. The best example is the Apu trilogy. If you read the book, the descriptions of the village, the fruits, etc. are so vivid, and Ray captures that on film. Sociologist Ashis Nandy once said that no one has shown an Indian village as clearly and honestly as Ray in Pather Panchali. This was remarkable, considering that Ray, apart from his not-so-long stay in Santiniketan, was mostly an urban person.

After Pratidwandi, my next job with Ray was in Ganashatru, almost 20 years later. Ganashatru came after Ray recovered from a long illness. The doctors had told him to rest, but he couldn’t wait to get back to work. Certain social problems had precipitated the creation of Ganashatru. Around this time, Hindutva was making an appearance with rumors of Ganesha idols drinking milk, temples popping up, etc. Ray was more and more disturbed by all these events and he decided to make a film on Ibsens Enemy of the People. Many restrictions were placed on her for health reasons during filming. He should turn inside, not get tired, his cardiologist would be on set, there would always be an ambulance outside, etc. The end result was a film that still remains relevant and contemporary even after 30 years.

After the shooting of Ganashatru, I did a very long, fluid interview with him, in which he touched on a wide range of subjects, the films he wanted to make, problems related to the environment, spiritualism, contemporary politics, etc. . At that time, I was living in Chennai. He told me that despite all the problems Calcutta was struggling with, he could never live anywhere other than Calcutta. Speaking of spiritualism, he said to me: I can’t see an old man with a beard floating up there. But there are various people whose judgment I trust, and they believe that there are things that exist beyond the realm of rationalism. I can’t dismiss it because of the respect I have for these people, but personally I find it very difficult to believe in a god. After his illness he felt that there were certain things he had to communicate, get out of his system call it death intimacies if you will and that is how Sakha Prasakha and Agantuk were born.

I had a small role in Agantuk, in which I interviewed the main character played by Utpal Dutt. Ray called me at his house to read me my scene. He was lying in his bed, but he was so excited about the movie that instead of reading only my part, he read me the whole script. His wife [Bijoya Ray] protested softly and kept reminding him of the doctor’s orders. Ray has always been an avid reader and his literary interests were varied. During his illness, his enforced inactivity gave him even more time to read and he was then reading the French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss. This led him to reflect on concepts like primitivism, modernity, which found expression in the character played by Utpal Dutt. In fact, he had said to Utpal Dutt: The character you play is actually me, so keep that in mind when playing the role. If we decode the film, then we hear Satyajit Ray himself expressing his own beliefs and values.

ARTISTIC VISION

When he led me to Pratidwandi, Ray was the most powerful physically, mentally and creatively. The movie was very dynamic and Ray was extremely physically active. But for the last three films, the situation had radically changed. Not only was her physical work limited by the doctors, she couldn’t even use the camera, which he had been doing for a long time. He was also not able to work too long in a row. Ray always believed in working at reasonable hours; but for the last three films, even the sensitive hours have been cut short. But what hadn’t changed was his clarity of mind and precision in action.

Before he started filming, Ray used to call all the main people associated with the movie and read the script to them. He was so sure what he was going to do that he practically played the entire script. In this way, those who listened to him could visualize their respective roles and tasks. In his last three films, although he was physically fragile, the clarity of his artistic vision had not diminished in any way. He knew exactly what he wanted; he just needed someone else to execute it.

Before Ganashatru started shooting, he asked the wardrobe to take the size of my shoes. When the shoes arrived I realized the heels were a bit higher so I looked taller. It has never been necessary to do this before, so I wondered why. Later, during the filming of the scene in which Soumitrada [Soumitra Chattopadhyay] and I am on stage together for the debate, I understood why he had ordered such shoes. He was doing a dolly that covered both of us. So, before filming even began, he knew that the framing of the scene would work better if there wasn’t a lot of height difference between the actors. That’s what I mean when I say its precision in visualization was as sharp as ever.

[ad_2]