The essay that inaugurates Filming Fiction: Tagore, Premchand, and Ray (edited by M Asaduddin and Anuradha Ghosh) makes a persuasive case for the existence of this anthology, which, at first glance, presents itself as simply yet another book on Satyajit Ray. In a disquisition titled His Films, Their Stories (whose name, of course, looks back at Ray’s own anthology, Our Films, Their Films), Meenakshi Mukherjee writes, “Twenty-three of Satyajit Ray’s thirty feature films were based on fiction written by well-known writers, and even out of the remaining seven films for which Ray himself wrote the stories, four were based on already published texts.” Thus, she concludes, translation from the printed page to the screen was the director’s most common mode of filmmaking, and she goes on to look at his adaptations of short stories by Tagore and Premchand, “attempting to trace a pattern in his changing relationship with the original literary texts.”

Ray’s oeuvre – in the context of the writers who precede him in this book’s title – is distinguished by three adaptations of Tagore. Teen Kanya (1961), an interpretation of three short stories (Postmaster, Monihara and Samapti), was created to commemorate Tagore’s birth centenary. Over two decades later, Ray made Ghare Baire (1984), one of the most exquisite late-period films of any filmmaker, based on the novel of the same name. And in between, in 1964, he transformed the novella Noshto Neerh into the justly acclaimed Charulata, though Brinda Bose, in an essay that argues that Ray’s film is “surely to be seen as autonomous from its literary ‘original’,” views the cinematic work as strong but problematic, its greatest weakness being the final freeze frame that, unlike Tagore’s unambiguously tragic end, hints at reconciliation between the heroine and her husband. Bose writes, “Ray fails to deliver on his promise of a provocative ‘postcolonial aura’ for Tagore’s transgressive, if colonially modernist, fiction.”
An uncontested master of one medium is thus found wanting when viewed through the prism afforded by a master of another medium. Like Bose, Deepti Zutshi focuses on a single work – the latter amongst Ray’s adaptations of Premchand’s short stories, Shatranj Ke Khiladi (1977) and Sadgati (1981). Looking at the film exclusively in terms of the director’s handling of the Dalit question, she contends that the adaptation “suggests that he could not grapple with the subject the way in which Premchand had (perhaps owing to his progressive politics with a socialist bias).” These passionately argued essays, along with others from leading academics and emerging scholars, simmer not with the schadenfreude of witnessing a golden god felled at his knees but the sobering truth that an artist, in his limitations, is merely a man. Not everyone is critical, of course. Jayita Sengupta, in the conclusion to an appreciation of Ghare Baire, may have provided the perfect conclusion to the book as well. “All his adaptations from Tagore reveal his understanding of the great visionary. But Ghare Baire, in particular, is possibly Ray’s greatest tribute to Tagore in recognition of his ideas political yet personal.”
An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2012 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
g
April 3, 2012
“simmer not with the schadenfreude”?
Sigh. Yet another Tambrahm with a thesaurus who thinks he’s writing for the New Yoker audience. Get a life!
rahultyagi
April 3, 2012
g’s comment reminds me of a joke.. “on a highway, everyone going slower than you is an idiot.. and everyone going faster is a maniac”
Vasisht Das
April 3, 2012
g:
and what?
you were reading dr.rangan all this while thinking he is writing for kumudam / ananda vikatan / kungumam / filmfare / stardust / TOI ? (pl don’t be a prude and edit these names out!)
great, let’s all adopt this anti-intellectual, banality / mediocrity = good writing stance and bully the sole film ‘reviewer’ (or whatever the good doc prefers to call himself) in the country who doesn’t stoop to star-ratings and “beauuutiful photography-shaaarp editing-caaatchy tunes-memooorable dialogues-defttt direction-aaall in all a film worth the price of your ticket” school of high-falutin film criticism into writing for the ‘masses’ (whoever that guy is).
there, i’m out of breath now.
devudaa, devudaa, devudaaa….(prof.rameshram, where art thou when we need the court jester / contrarian?)
: (
KayKay
April 3, 2012
“Sigh. Yet another Tambrahm with a thesaurus who thinks he’s writing for the New Yoker audience. Get a life!”
Sigh! Yet another fuckin’ blow-hard who craps his pants at the sight of words exceeding 2 syllables.
See what I did there, G?
strickland
April 3, 2012
And what does it say about the Apu Trilogy?
But isn’t any comparison of the written version to film (or vice versa) bound to end bittersweet?
brangan
April 3, 2012
strickland: Thanks for being the first to comment on the actual piece
Oh, there’s a lot of laudatory stuff in here as well, But given the word length allotted, I just stuck to the more unexpected dimensions.
Also, this book only concerns itself with adaptations of Tagore and Premchand.
aandthirtyeights
April 3, 2012
You know that old joke about the cow that ate a roll of film, no? It said, “The book was better.”
rameshram
April 3, 2012
Dasu, you all fuckers deserve one another. I’m not in this.
Ranga
April 4, 2012
Er, isn’t media the plural of medium?
travellingslacker
April 5, 2012
Isn’t this mentality the reason for the kind of pop culture we have?
Radhika
April 6, 2012
tsk, tsk, you didn’t get it – brannigan is referring to the many clairvoyants and fortune-tellers whom ray employed.
signed
brannigan’s english teacher
Venkateshwaran
April 7, 2012
Even though Ray adapted the texts of well-known writers in most of his films, only an auteur like him could project the visual brilliance of those texts in the screen. This review tempts me a buy a copy of it. Nice post!
Ranga
April 8, 2012
Touche! A master of seance-play, as well!