Filmmakers must celebrate the country’s literary heritage
This anthology comprises contributions by the friends and admirers of Bimal Roy, celebrating the filmmaker’s extraordinary oeuvre. Here’s an extract from one of Roy’s own essays on cinema.
By Rinki Roy Bhattacharya Edited by Anwesha Arya Publisher: Penguin Random House India Pages: 288 Price: Rs 374
Filming a classic has always been a great temptation for filmmakers. It is, in fact, an honour. Classics have been and will be made in all filmproducing countries.
The writings of Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo, Dumas, Leo Tolstoy and other literary masters have been made repeatedly on celluloid. In the same vein, the works of Kalidas, Banbhatta, Bankimchandra, Tagore and Saratchandra Chattopadhyay— perhaps the most filmed author—have been in India. Our most popular author, Saratbabu’s works have been made into films again and again.
There is good reason for it. Every Saratchandra story has good plots, convincing characters, truthful yet dramatic situations and crisp dialogue—the sum total of all this strikes a chord in us film-makers.
I have so far made films of three Saratchandra classics,
and and I can say with confidence c that a Saratchandra story proves to be an asset when making a film. Adapting the novel into a film is not always an easy job. Any Saratchandra classic may leave the filmmaker biting off more than he can chew.
The main characters as presented by Saratchandra in his novels present the filmmaker with his first problem. Fundamentals apart, his characterisations offer varied interpretations to a character’s actions and behaviour. Each individual can be viewed from different perspectives. Not unnaturally are the readers of these classics likely to blame the filmmaker’s interpretations. But can the film-maker really be blamed?
In the history of criticism one finds new analysis of the classics in every age. Interpretations of the classics change as the times change, and critics at different times have expressed even opposite views.
As pointed out by Roger Manvell, the famous film critic, the interpretations of
in the 19th and 20th centuries as a lovelorn romantic has been swept aside by the great Spanish literary critic Salvador de Madamaga, who interprets Hamlet as being self- centred and unable to accept duties and relationships outside his own personal interests and emotions. Madamaga even suggests a Machiavellian touch about Hamlet.
Sir Lawrence Olivier’s portrayal of the character is very interesting. He plays the part with a cold pride, in a contemplative mood which sometimes brings him very close to Madamaga’s conception of Hamlet’s real character. Olivier’s interpretation was By building India’s railways, Britain unwittingly created the preconditions of independence. The Indian Railways network is one of the largest in the world. In this expertly told history, Christian Wolmar reveals the full story of India’s railways, from its very beginnings to the present day and examines the chequered role they have played in Indian history and the creation of today’s modern state. accepted because people who read Shakespeare do not miss Hamlet’s introspection, but Olivier’s melancholy is vastly different from John Barrymore’s portrayal in an earlier film version of Hamlet.
Will a Sarat story be accepted in the same fashion? There is a great tendency in our country to judge such films by comparing them only with older film versions and never with the original classic on which it is based. How many film viewers care to read carefully what Saratchandra has written, before they go to watch the film version of one of his novels?
The story material furnished by a Sarat classic is the filmmaker’s second problem. Let the filmmaker change Sarat’s story here or there, and the critics will leap out of their skins saying that a crime has been committed. Let him adhere faithfully to Saratchandra and follow this writer’s own treatment, and they will de- mand more detailed development.
Where Saratchandra subtly shows the blossoming of love through suggestions, a section of the critics vociferously clamour for literal depictions from the maker of the film version of the classic, not bothering about Sarat’s own handling of the theme and putting forward the reason that the film is a different art form and should fashion its material according to its needs.
Suppose, if one were to anticipate the lashings of the critics and compromise? Would the critics be silenced or satisfied then? I doubt it.
The result would still be the same. Sacrilege will be discovered or invented and clubs brandished for taking liberties with the original work. There were other difficulties I came across while making my three films based on Saratchandra classics, but they are of a technical nature and to discuss them will make dry reading. I would like to add that filming classics, especially a Saratchandra novel, is a difficult task for any filmmaker. It also means courting controversies. Yet who can resist the temptation to film this writer’s novels?
His stories are taut human dramas; they are real, emotionally touching and often uplifting. His dialogues are arresting. And a Saratchandra classic is secure at the box office. It makes sure that the producer and the filmmaker provide the audience with rich entertainment. In spite of controversies involved in filming Saratchandra classics, the works of this famous Bengali author continues to attract filmmakers, including me.
The producer of a Saratchandra classic earns artistic dignity with a good film. Controversies notwithstanding, a Saratchandra classic is still a great and enduring temptation to me.
Although we are entertainers, I believe a filmmaker has the additional social duty of bringing to his viewers the best treasures of the country’s literary heritage. I will consider it a privilege if yet another Saratchandra classic is offered to me. Extracted with permission from Bimal Roy: The man who spoke in Pictures, by Rinki Roy Bhattacharya, published by Penguin Random House India