ওই দেখ, ঋত্ত্বিকের জুতো ছিঁড়ে গেল!

মাননীয় ঋত্ত্বিক ঘটক সমীপেষু,

কাল ‘মেঘে ঢাকা তারা’র পঞ্চাশ বছর পূর্তি হল। আপনি ছিলেন না বলে জানতে পারলেন না আমরা আপনাকে কত শ্রদ্ধা জানালাম।একটু বলি আপনাকে। তার আগে বলে নিই যে আপনাকে এই চিঠিটা বাংলায় লিখব না ইংরেজীতে তা নিয়ে একটু ভাবছিলাম। এটা ইন্টারনেট বা আন্তর্জাল। অনেক ভাষাভাষি মানুষ আছেন এখানে।তাঁরা যদি না বোঝেন? তারপরে ভাবলাম সেত সিনেমাও আন্তর্জাতিক। তারপরেও আপনি তো বাংলাতেই সিনেমাটা বানিয়েছেন এবং এখন এই ‘মেঘে ঢাকা তারা’ দেখে বিদেশিরা ধন্য ধন্য করছে বলে আমরা আজকাল গাল ভারী করি।

অনেকগুলো সিনেমা বানিয়েছিলেন আপনি, তার মধ্যে এটাই সব চেয়ে বেশী আলোচিত। কেন বলুন তো? আপনার কি মনে হয়? এর আগে ‘নাগরিক’ বানিয়েছিলেন সেটা মুক্তি পেলো আপনার মৃত্যুর পরে। ‘পথের পাঁচালী’র আগে বানানো চলচ্চিত্র। আপনি না হয়ে, আরেক লম্বা সত্যজিৎ হয়ে গেলেন বাংলা তথা ভারতীয় সিনেমার আইকন। আপনি না মশাই কিছু জিনিস আদৌ বুঝতেন না। পার্টি আপনাকে পুদোভকিন-কে সামলাতে পাঠালো আর আপনি গোছাতে পারলেন না? মাণিকবাবুকে দেখুন তো! রেনোয়ার সঙ্গে থেকে শুধু কতদুর যোগাযোগ বানিয়ে নিলেন? ন্যু ইয়র্কে ম্যুজিয়াম অব মডার্ণ আর্ট-এ ‘পথের পাঁচালী’ দেখিয়ে দেওয়া হল। চলচ্চিত্র বানালেই হবেনা, সেটা দেখাতে হবে। আপনি পুদোভকিন-কে ধরে আর কিছু না হোক স্লাভিক দেশগুলোতে তো ব্যবস্থা করতে পারতেন?

আমাদের দেখুন তো, এসব আমরা কম বুঝি? সে যাই বানাই না কেন কোন ফেস্টিভ্যাল-এ যাওয়া উচিত তা নিয়ে আগে থেকেই আমরা বিষম চিন্তিত। আসলে আপনি না মধ্যিখানে খুব ঝুলেছেন। একবার বানাবেন ‘বন্দুকবাজ’, কখনো বিমল রায়-এর সহকারী হবেন, কখনো তার হয়ে ‘মধুমতি’ লিখবেন, এসব করলে চলে? লোকে বুঝতেই পারেনি আপনি কি? নব সিনেমার পথিকৃত না কি কামাতে চান? খেতে হত? হা হা হা হা! শিল্পের লোকের আবার খাওয়া! এই যে আপনি বাংলা খেতেন, খাবার খেতে পেতেন না বলেই আমরা ধরে নিয়েছি শেষ দিকে, সেটাকেই আমরা উচ্চাবচ অবস্থান দিয়ে থাকি। আপনার স্ত্রী যে কিছু উপার্জন করতেন সেটাকে নাম্বারই দিই না। যেমন এখনো আমাদের অনেকের মনে হয় সুকান্ত-র পরিবার ছিল খুব দরিদ্র, তাই সুকান্ত অমন কবিতা লিখতেন আর যক্ষায় মারা গেলেন! বেশ লাগে ভাবতে কিন্তু। একটা বিপ্লবী ভাব হয় মনে। আপনাকে নিয়েও অমন একটা গর্ব আছে মনের ভিতর। সিনেমার জন্যে আপনি খেতে পান নি। এই যে আপনার স্যাক্রিফাইস, এর জন্যে আমাদের একটা শেয়ার হয়েছে বিশ্ব-সিনেমায়। আমরা আমাদের ভ্যান গখ পেয়ে গেছি। এই যে আপনি, এই আপনাকে দেখতে পাই এই ‘মেঘে ঢাকা তারা’-য়! মানে দেখে ফেলি। ওই দেখ, ঋত্ত্বিকের জুতো ছিঁড়ে গেল। ঋত্ত্বিক উদবাস্তু না? আপনি তাড়া খেয়ে এসেছিলেন? নাকি আগে থেকেই আপনার পরিবার এখানে থাকতেন? সে সব খুব ভাল করে সকলে জানিনা। জানতে চাইওনা। শুধু জানি আপনি মানে বাংলাদেশ থেকে আসা উদবাস্তু, যার ট্রেনের শট-টা থেমে যাবে সীমান্তের কাছে। দুর্গা, উমা, শঙ্কর, রাম, সীতা এসবের অনুষঙ্গে ছড়ানো থাকবে আপনার ক্যানভাসের চিত্র-চরিত্রাবলী। অনেক কিছু করবেন আপনি ওই নীতার মত, কিন্তু দাম পাবেন না। ভালবাসবেন রক্ত-ক্লেদ-ঘামে, ভালবাসা পাবেন না। ব্যার্থ হবেন। আমরা উল্লসিত হব। এই তো পেয়েছি! আরেক কর্ণ! অন্যায় যুদ্ধে যার পতন। নীতার প্রেমিক-কে ছিনিয়ে নিল নীতার বোন। ছিঃ!

সভ্যতার একটা উলটো পিঠ থাকে। সেটা কে যদি দেখতে না পাওয়া যায় তাহলে বেশ সমস্যা হয় সভ্যতা বুঝতে। সাদার প্রেক্ষিত না থাকলে কালো বুঝিনা যেমন, তেমনি আর কি! আপনি আমাদের সেই প্রেক্ষিত। আপনাকে দেখে আমরা শিখি কি কি করতে নেই! বাজে সিনেমার, পরিচিত, ভাল যোগাযোগ-ওয়ালা এবং বড় ডিরেক্টরকে সব সময় ভাল বলতে হয়। বন্ধু-বান্ধব বুদ্ধিজীবি হলে খুব খারাপ লিখলে, আঁকলে বা নাট্য পরিচালনা করলেও বলা যাবে না খারাপ। কারণ সে শোধ নেবে, বদলাবে না। সেই শেষ কথা এই বোধ তার হয়েছে বলেই সে বুদ্ধিজীবি। এই বোধকে সে বজায় রাখতে জায়গায় জায়গায় পূজো দেয়। কাজেই আপনার মত পোকামাকড় নিয়ে লেখে আমরা বলবো না কাউকেই।

এই উত্তর উপনিবেশ দেশেও সাহেব সাহেব জীবনযাপন চাই আমাদের। রাস্তায় বসে আড্ডা দিলে, সকলের নাগালের মধ্যে খালাসিটোলায় বসে মদ খেলে লোকে পাত্তা দেবে না জীয়ন্তে। রাজনীতির শীর্ষস্থানীয়দের বলা যাবেনা চোর বা ভুল; দুটোতেই সমান বিপদ! একদলের কাউকে বললে অন্যদল খুশী হবে বাইরে, কিন্তু ভেতরে সেও আপনাকে সন্দেহর চোখেই দেখবে। তাকেও যদি ঘুরে বলে দ্যান? সেও তো একই গোয়ালের গরু। ইংরেজী চিবিয়ে না বললেও বাজারের পদ্ধতিতে অন্তত ককনি বলতেই হবে, নইলে আপনি অচল।দেখছেন অশোক দিন্দা-কেও আইপিএল-এ ইংরেজী বলতে হয়! বাংলা ছেড়ে দিন, নিতান্ত হিন্দিতেও সে কথা বলতে পারেনা পুরস্কার নিতে। স্পন্সর সব দিক দেখে রাখেন, পুরস্কার-ও এসব না দেখে আসেনা।

আর অবশ্যই আপনার মত সিনেমা বানানো যাবেনা। অভাব নিয়ে সিনেমা আজকাল আর চলেনা। ভারত এখন জগত সভায় বড় আসন নিয়েছে। সেখানে তার কোনো দারিদ্র নেই। সে এখন ন্যুক্লিয়ার সুপার পাওয়ার। অন্য দেশকে সে পরামর্শ দেয় কিভাবে অর্থনীতি সামলাতে হবে। হুঁ হুঁ! ভাবছেন কি? আমেরিকা স্বয়ং শোনে তার কথা, মানে তার প্রধানমন্ত্রীর কথা। সে আফঘানিস্তানকে ঋণ দেয়। তার ব্যবসায়ীরা অন্য দেশের কোম্পানী কেনে। এখানে দারিদ্র? ও সব আসলে কুঁড়েমির জন্যে। এখানে সমস্যা হল মধ্যবিত্তের পরকীয়ার অক্লান্ত ইচ্ছে। একঝাঁক তরুণ-তরুণীর রক গাইতে না পারা, নিদেন পক্ষে এনআরআই-দের আত্মপরিচয়। এসব নিয়ে সিনেমা আজ!

দারিদ্র নিয়ে ছবি হত এনএফডিসি-র আমলে। আজকাল সে টাকা দেয়না আর! এসব আপনি বুঝতেন না। আর তাই যত্ত সব সিনেমা বানিয়েছেন হয় দারিদ্র নয় আদর্শের সংঘাত এসব নিয়ে।নাটকের দলের সমস্যা নিয়ে। এসব নিয়ে সিনেমা হয়? নাটকের বিপ্লবী দলে নারী-পুরুষ কে কার ঘনিষ্ঠ হবে তা নিয়ে কখনো সমস্যা হয়েছে আজ অবধি? কেউ ওখানে ইগোতে ভুগেছে নাকি? সবাই এখানে দিনে ও রাত্রে শুধু বিপ্লব করে আর দেশ গড়ে। কাজেই আপনি যা বানিয়েছেন তা বানানো যাবেনা। ‘কোমল-গান্ধার’ বা ‘যুক্তি তক্কো আর গল্প’-র অনুসন্ধানের কোনো মানে নেই।

তবু আমরা আজকে ‘মেঘে ঢাকা তারা’ নিয়ে কথা বলছি। বলছি এই কারণে যে নীতার যা হয়েছিল তা হল আপনার হওয়াটা! অনেক চেষ্টা করে, অনেক স্বপ্ন দেখে, অনেক ভালবেসে, অনেক লড়াইয়ের রাস্তা পেরিয়ে তাকে তার ভেতরের রোগ, তার হেরে যাওয়া কুড়ে কুড়ে খেতে শুরু করলো। শিলং-এর পাহাড়ে একমাত্র শিল্পি দাদার- সেই অপদার্থ দাদা- যে সংসারের সব দায় আপাতদৃষ্টিতে ত্যাগ করে গেছিল, তার বুকের মধ্যে ভেঙ্গে পড়তে হয়। ‘বাঁচতে’ চেয়েছিল নীতা। আপনারই মত! নীতা সবের মধ্যে বেঁচে থাকাকেই প্রধান করেছিল। সেখান কোন কিছুই তাকে দমাতে পারেনি অনেক কাল। কারণ একমাত্র বেঁচে থাকলেই সে পারবে ভালবাসতে, নতুন কিছু আবার গড়ে তুলতে। কিন্তু একের পর এক বিশ্বাসঘাতকতা, একের পর এক দলছুট হওয়া তাকে এক সময় পেড়েই ফেলল। আপনাকেও পেড়ে ফেলেছিল। বাংলার বোতল ক্যামেরার উপর উপুর করে নীলকন্ঠ চলে গেলেন। আপনি? বোতল ছাড়াই গেলেন, কিন্তু বিষটা ঝেড়ে দিয়ে গেলেন তো? আমরা এই আপনাকে মেপে নিতে বারেবারে দেখি ‘মেঘে ঢাকা তারা’, যাতে আর কেউ আমাদের এভাবে পেড়ে না ফেলতে পারে। ঋত্ত্বিক, আপনি এখানে The Outsider!  আর আমরা ব্যবস্থা। এই পঞ্চাশেও বোঝাপড়াটা শেষ হল না, হয়তো একশো-তে হবে!

ইতি,

ঋত্ত্বিক-মৃণাল-সত্যজিৎ-এর ব্যাটন আর দিবাকরের 'সাংহাই'

ভাসিলিস ভাসিলিকোস, গ্রীক মিলিটারি জুন্টা রেজিম, কোস্টা গাভ্রাস,সাংহাই- নতুন চীনের নতুন বিপ্লব এবং দিবাকর ব্যানার্জী। সব মিলিয়ে একটা জম্পেশ ব্যাপার।
দিবাকর হ্যান্ড হেল্ড ক্যামেরা, লো কি লাইটিং, জাম্প কাট ইত্যাদি সিনেমার নানা বিপ্লবকে সিনেমায় ব্যবহার করেন অবিরল।
ভাসিলি ভাসিলিকোস গ্রীসের সেই সাংবাদিক যিনি তাঁর রাজনৈতিক মতাদর্শের জন্য গ্রীস থেকে বহিষ্কৃত ছিলেন সাত বছর। এখন গ্রীসের পক্ষে রাষ্ট্রপুঞ্জের প্রতিনিধি।
গ্রীস, সেই দেশ যেখানের অর্থনীতি নাকি গোটা বিশ্বের অর্থনীতিকে নাজেহাল করে ছেড়ে দিচ্ছে। গ্রীস সভ্যতা-সংস্কৃতির প্রাচীন পিঠস্থান।
সাংহাই, চীনের সেই বন্দর যা বহু শতাব্দী ধরেই বাণিজ্যকে তার পরিচয় বানিয়েছিল। সাংহাই, মাও-এর সাংস্কৃতিক বিপ্লবে কম্যুনিষ্ট পার্টির সদর দপ্তরে কামান দাগার ডাকের যন্ত্রী জিয়াং কুইং ও বিখ্যাত গ্যাং অফ ফোর-এর আরো তিনের দাপটের অঞ্চল। সাংহাই, মাও-এর পতনের/মৃত্যুর পরে দেও জিয়াং পিং-এর নয়া চীন সাম্রাজ্যের খোলা বাজার নীতির অন্যতম কেন্দ্র। এখানেই পৃথিবীর সবচেয়ে বড় স্পেশাল ইকোনমিক জোন আছে। সেই স্পেশাল ইকোনমিক জোন যেখানে পুঁজিপতির স্বার্থ ছাড়া বাকী সব কিছুই অপ্রয়োজনীয়। সমাজতান্ত্রিক বলে কথিত চীনের শ্রমিকের সেখানে কোনো অধিকারই নেই, যা আছে তা নয়া ক্রীতদাসত্ব।
এখন এই সব মিলিয়ে আপনি যদি সাংহাই দেখতে যান, আজ্ঞে বেড়াতে না, সিনেমাটি দেখতে, তাহলে একটাই বিপ্লবের সম্মুখীন হবেন। মূল ধারার হিন্দি সিনেমায় এই প্রথম একটি সিনেমা বানানো হল যেখানে রাজনীতি মানে কিছু বোকা সংলাপ না, এর সামান্য হলেও গভীরে ঢোকার চেষ্টা আছে।
যা নেই তা হল কোস্টা গাভ্রাসের ডিরেক্ট সিনেমা। দিবাকরের সাংহাইতে সব চরিত্র কাল্পনিক গোত্রের যে ডিসক্লেইমার দেওয়া হয় গাভ্রাস তার পিন্ডি চটকে দিয়েছিলেন এই ভাসিলিস-এর উপন্যাসটি নিয়ে বানানো বিখ্যাত ফরাসী সিনেমা 'Z' এ। সেই সিনেমার শুরুতে লেখা থাকতো,
“Any resemblance to real events, to persons dead or living, is not accidental. It is INTENTIONAL.”

অধ্যাপক আহমদী (প্রসেনজিত চ্যাটার্জী) আসছেন প্লেনে চেপে, নতুন ভারত নগরে যে উচ্ছেদ হচ্ছে স্পেশাল ইকোনমিক জোন বানানোর জন্য সেই উচ্ছেদের বিরোধ করতে। সিনেমা এখান থেকে শুরু হয়। আহমদী আধুনিক ভারতের ক্ষমতাকাঠামোর অভ্যন্তরকে জানেন। নিজের কাজ বুদ্ধিমত্তার সঙ্গে করতে পারেন। প্লেন থেকে নেমে এক পাতি হিরোইনের সঙ্গে ঘণিষ্ঠ হয়ে ছবি তোলার ফাঁকেই জানিয়ে দ্যান তিনি সেই অভিনেত্রীর নাচের অনুষ্ঠানে আসবেন যদি অভিনেত্রী আসেন তাঁর সঙ্গে উচ্ছেদ বিরোধীতার মঞ্চে। তাঁর এককালের ছাত্রী( কল্কি কোয়েচলিন) কে যখন স্থানীয় থানার দুই সাব ইন্সপেক্টর সাদা পোষাকে এসে থানায় যেতে বলে হুমকী দিয়ে তখন তিনিও বলেন হ্যারাসমেন্ট-এর চার্জে তিনিও তাঁদের জেলে ঢোকাতে পারেন এবং চাইলেই পারেন তাঁদের মেয়েদের বেআইনী ভাবে থানায় ডাকিয়ে আনতে। এর মানে অধ্যাপক জানেন ক্ষমতা কিভাবে কাজ করে। কিন্তু সেই অধ্যাপককে উচ্ছেদ বিরোধী কনভেনশনের জায়গাতেই একটি ম্যাটাডোর চাপা দিয়ে বেরিয়ে যায়। অধ্যাপকের দুর্ঘটনা বা খুনের চেষ্টা কোনটা দাঁড়াবে তা ঠিক করার জন্য মহিলা এক মুখ্যমন্ত্রী(সুপ্রিয়া পাঠক)-র সরকার একটি কমিশন বসায়। দক্ষিণী এক আইসিএস(অভয় দেওল)-এর নেতৃত্বে এক সদস্যের কমিটি নানা বাধা বিঘ্নের মধ্যে সেই কমিটিকে তামাশা হওয়ার থেকে রক্ষা করতে থাকে। একদিকে চীফ সেক্রেটারি(ফারুক শেখ) খোলাখুলি জানিয়ে দ্যান কমিটির থেকে সরকারী বয়ানের বাইরের কিছু চাই না। অন্যদিকে এক পর্নো কাম স্থানীয় চিত্রসাংবাদিক (ইমরান হাসমি) ও ছাত্রীটির চেষ্টায় নানা সূত্র জোগাড় হতে থাকে। যথারীতি পুলিশ তদন্ত করে না। তদন্তের নামে নষ্টামো চালিয়ে যায়। সিনেমাটি দ্রুত গতিতে এগোতে থাকে এবং যখন শেষ হয় তখন ভারতনগর আসলে যে আধুনিক ভারত যা ইন্ডিয়া নামেই বেশী পরিচিত তা বেশ বোঝা যায়।

দিবাকরের সাফল্য হল কোনো রকম নাটকীয়তা ছাড়াই খুব ঠান্ডা মাথায় আসল নাটকটাকে ধরে রেখেছেন। এমনকি সিনেমার শেষেও দেখা যায় অধ্যাপকের হত্যাকারী মুখ্যমন্ত্রীর সাধের ভারতনগরের মুখ্য অভিভাবক হয়ে ওঠেন আক্রান্ত অধ্যাপকের স্ত্রী, যিনি অধ্যাপকের সঙ্গেই এককালে এই সব আন্দোলনে ছিলেন, কিন্তু তারপরে তাঁর মোহভঙ্গ হয় এবং তিনি সুন্দর ভাবে রাজনীতির আঙিনায় নিজের জমি বানিয়ে নিয়েছেন। সেই জমি বানাতে গিয়ে আহমদীর হত্যাতে যে জনসহানুভূতি সেই সহানুভূতিকে কাজে লাগিয়ে হোম মিনিস্টার অব ইন্ডিয়ার পরামর্শে কেন্দ্রসরকারের চালক দলে যোগ দিয়ে এবারে মুখ্যমন্ত্রী হতে চলেছেন। ভারতের রাজনীতির পরিস্কার ছবি। 

আর ব্যার্থতা? ব্যার্থতা তাঁর না। ব্যার্থতা সিনেমা মাধ্যমটার। এই সামান্য সময়ের মধ্যে রাজনীতির কূটাভাসগুলোকে ধরা যায়, সামগ্রিকতায় গোটা দেশকে বেচে দেওয়া ধরা যায় না। তাও গানের মধ্যে যখন ভারত আর ইন্ডিয়ার দ্বান্দ্বিকতাকে ধরছেন তখন সেটা একটা স্টেটমেন্ট হয়ে দাঁড়ায়। গল্পের মধ্যে দিয়ে গেলে এমন একটা বিষয়কে ধরা যায় আংশিক ভাবে। সেটাই ধরেছেন দিবাকর। হাইকোর্টে বকোয়াস মামলা হয়েছিল গান নিয়ে। সেই মামলাও জিতেছেন। কিন্তু দর্শক? যে দর্শক এখন সিনেমা দেখতে যায় তারা তো এই ভারতনগর গড়ে ওঠার অংশ। এর বিরোধ করার কথা তাদের শপিং মল আর ডিস্কো থেকের দুনিয়ায় তারা স্বপ্নেও ভাবে না। তাঁদের জিতবেন কি?

জিতুন বা হারুন, ন্যাকা-বোকা মধ্যবিত্তের ঘামাচি মার্কা সমস্যার প্যানপ্যানানির তথাকথিত অন্যধারার বাইরে একজন বাঙালি একটা সপাট সিনেমা বানালো অনেকদিন পরে। ঋত্ত্বিক-মৃণাল-সত্যজিৎ-এর ব্যাটনটা কার হাতে সেটা বুঝতে এর পরেও আর কোনো সমস্যা থাকার কথা না। 

DEVDAS, broken dreams and wings of Anurag Kashyap

DEV D, the movie, will be releasing on 6th February, 2009. This one novel DEVDAS by eminent Bengali writer Saratchandra Chattapadhyaya has previously been transmitted to movie medium for several times. But before getting into the movie mania let us discuss a bit about the author's time-space in which he wrote this.DEV D

It was 1917 and India is not the one as it is now. It was a subcontinent that includes India, Pakistan, Bangladesh of today and the British rule had Myanmar, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan and Tibet under it's control. A new class of mainly Hindu aristocrats and middle society was awakening towards the development that was happening in Western part of the world. They had seen it from distance and then gradually had imbibed some of it into their own system. They were at a loss in that crossroad of history to find an identity of suitable nature. They could not be turned into westerners overnight and the landlords or moneyed government servants could not even stand their own state of affairs as it was too outdated.

The larger society of Hindus were used to the dominance of Islamic rulers until British came and they had served them too unhesitatingly, only to get their previous rulers at par.Then there were class divisions too. Most of the peasants were exploited to the hilts by British taxation and by it's own Hindu or Muslim landlords. Leaders from regions who grew under British influence was trying to float a pan Indian nationalism in the model of European nation-state. They were eager to establish at least a honorable ground to stand before their new masters.

For the first time in the history of this sub-continent this vast tract had came under a single ruler and ruling system. Certain leaders had interpreted that mighty British rule was invincible and even they had find it more favorable than all the previous rules. That section had appealed to British rulers to be taken into account for part in governance and had pressed for a home rule under British commonwealth. But not all had shared that enthusiasm. Some others knew that arms and counter violence could be handy to throw away tyranny. To which Gandhi was an answer on the days political perspective and he came with non-violence and even picked up non-co-operation that was practiced in 1905 in Bengal previously by others. But in 1917 he was in Champaran movement and was developing his weapons to dominate Indian political scenario till 1947. He was yet to come.

Older DevdasGuns and Bombs were fatigued by that time and a shift had been started towards Socialistic and Communist ways from Nihilist activities. But that shift were too far from middle class youths of Bengal who were in the upfront of violent fights. They were confused, divided in numerous groups of which mostly had self serving narrow interests only. Home rule was not in their cards and violent campaigns were not doing miracles. Yet a better part of Bengali youths had been far from freedom movements too and they were desperate to get a job in British governmental system. There were few. So the competitions and heart-breaks went up hand in hand.

Now here enters DEVDAS (a Bengali name for a youth) the novel and it was an instant success. A big landlord's son Devdas came back to his village from his study and had renewed his childhood love interest in village belle Parbati. But that was not for long. Soon he had to leave her under family pressure as Parbati's social status did not meet his. Parbati, although shattered by this betrayal, had came to terms with reality and had married an elder widower. Devdas went off from that village only to find out Parbati later on. He tried hard to convince Parbati to elope with him and failed. His confidence was devastated and he grew into an alcoholic while booting another love offer from a courtesan Chandramukhi. He was lost, he was bloodied by egoism, he was beyond salvation. Chunilal, another agent of a wretched time, who lived on a parasitic existence and had no prick of conscience, which nature often spills from poverty and hopelessness of human escapade from de-colored life, had made Devdas his pray. He had introduced him to Chandramukhi and in return lived a luxurious parasitic life. Devdas's father had died in the meantime and left a huge property to be destroyed only by his successor. Devdas on sensing that his final stage was coming went to see Parbati again, only to meet death on road. He died of alcoholism. He died from the shock of ever deluding identity. He died from the lack of courage. As a final salute to destiny in desperate time-space his saga had lived therefore.

First Devdas movie was made in 1928. That was not upto the mark. Most famous adaptation in Bengali was made by Pramathesh Barua in 1935 and his cinematographer Bimal Roy had made another in 1955, which was in Hindi. There were other productions based on Devdas too in Hindi, Bengali and Tamil languages. When Pramathesh was making that movie a wide spat between Subhas Chandra Bose (a leader of Congress who eclipsed others including Gandhi, in his steadfast demand of freedom instead of Home rule or Dominion Status) and Gandhi follower right wing leadership was open in public. Petty compromises were ruining freedom struggles and frustrated jobless youths were growing in numbers. Subhas was not that influential to stand up and move ahead against the wishes of Gandhi in those days, though he was the then Congress president. As political leaderships were failing, situations were only worsening. In this confused state of affair Pramathesh came out with DEVDAS. It had phenomenal success.

Then as India became independent and there was none to blame for her miseries it had to stand alone after 1947. All the flames of rising hopes had been put off harshly by the coming years of 1950's and 1960's. Joblessness, poverty, black-marketing, corruptions grew hand in hand. Frustration in social lives were showing off. No respite despite British absence was clear to the literate class. Again Bimal Roy had succeeded like Pramathesh and Dilip Kumar became icon as Devdas. A femme fatale of Indian cinema, Suchitra Sen had been Parbati or Paro (nicknamed by Devdas and her family) and she too was mind blowing. When BlACK famous Sanjay Leela Bhansali had interpreted DEVDAS in 2002, he had cast Madhuri Dixit as Chandramukhi. Madhuri has an uncanny similarity of eyes with Suchitra and in India Suchitra is venerated as Marilyn Monroe. Sanjay had cleverly changed Bimal Roy's cast pattern and had Aiswharya Rai as Parbati. Shah Rukh Khan, one leading star of Bollywood had fit in the place of Dilip Kumar, who was known in Indian cinema as tragedy king. Interestingly Shah Rukh has a influence of Dilip Kumar on him and Sanjay's tricks had nearly payed. But despite being a box-office success it had not produced anything similar to earlier releases of Pramathesh or Bimal Roy. Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Devdas

In 2002 Indian economy was looking good from the stock market point of view and there were huge number of stories of fat purses that was created due to outsourcing of US based IT companies and service sectors. Though there were no real growth in terms of classical industries and no opening for millions of jobless youths still there were hopes for it in the air. At that point of a time a devastating tale like DEVDAS had a restrained influence on the multiplex goers with thick back pocket loads.

But now the gaps are wide open. All the hidden wounds are showing. Recently the demise of Satyam Computer Service Limited tells the exact tale. It had it's income inflated to many times than the real one and now can not bridge the gap. The flip side of phony Indian economy is showing it's true color gradually. In this context the new DEV D (DEVDAS) by Anurag Kashyap is catching attentions.

This Devdas comes back from studies abroad like so many well off upper-middle class or upper-class youths do now and renews his love lore with Parbati. Here Chandramukhi is a student who had been exposed in a sex-scandal through MMS and now is an escort girl in after sun period of the date. Music is rocky and steamy too. A pervasive use of vocabulary that which is common in subversive social nature been coined in the forms of lyric and a sleek look is expected for the Anurag Kashyap movie.

Abay DeolAbhay Deol as Devdas, Mahi Gil as Parbati and Kalki as Chandramukhi is far from all previously star studded DEVDAS and that is why it is DEV D. But the most important deviation is in Chunilal casting. In all versions stars had played that character, though small but very important as catalyst, and they had seldom done justice to it. But this time Anurag has cast Dibyendu Bhattacharya in it. Debu is a very powerful actor who had been utilized in a lesser scale even by the likes of Meera Nair or Ketan Mehta. He is thoughtful, intense, all act no glory kind and pitch black in tone. He is a definite departure in cast interpretation and will be monitored closely therefore.

What more is in it will be known after release only! But the development of Devdas in pan-Indian psyche demands not only a deft handling but also the near absurd depiction of destructive frustration that which is infectious. This infections go down to the people from movies and to movies from time-space of this nation of broken promises and dreams.

Kolkata International Forum of New Cinema 2008

BY SUDDHASATYA GHOSH. KOLKATA, INDIA (CINEMA MINIMA) — Cine Central, probably the largest film society in Asia, will screen 70 films from 30 countries as part of the 14th Kolkata Film Festival to be held here 2008 November 10-17. A good selection of movies — from Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Iran, Mexico, Norway, Poland, Pakistan, Sweden, South Korea, Slovakia, and Uruguay — will be warming the occasion. A tribute to Che Guevara to commemorate his 80th birthday in the ‘Documedia’ section; homages to Cuban Humberto Solas and Egyptian Youssef Chahine; and a good bunch of Turkish, Norwegian, and Dutch contemporary movies are some of the interesting aspects of this festival.

Wait! The list is yet to complete: There is a Tribute section to Manoel de Oliveira, the documentarist of ACTO DE PRIMAVERA | RITE OF SPRING and of FRANCISCA. Believe me I am all in hunger to face him in the dark theatre. I remember him as a forerunner to Italian neo-realist trend with his depiction of Oporto’s street children. Some months ago as I was watching TRAFFIC SIGNAL, a movie by an Indian director Madhur Bhandarkar from Mumbai’s so-called offbeat class, I was just thinking about Oliveira’s influence in movie world.

Well I am raring to go. It will start on 14th November. This Cine society had a great influence in our movie culture. But as the censorship is too tough in India, it is difficult for them to get uncensored movies from around the world to exhibit. They have a fund crunch too.

I think these and some other reasons had made them work with the state government of West Bengal after they had started this festival at 1986 as the first independent International festival in India. That time it was called ‘Calcutta International Film Festival’ and now it is International Forum of New Cinema from 1998, after the collaboration with the government.

There is another thing that I noticed here — the absence of digital representations. I will ask them about it soon. Whatever the problems are — these few good men, volunteers of movie world, are not compromising on quality. That is why this festival is a must for the movie maniacs of India till date — and you may count me as one.

courtesy: www.cinemaminima.com

Sword-fight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDY_Op5pexY
This is our ongoing production. Watch it!!!

CRITICAL ADOOR & A FEW MORE WORDS FOR MUMBAI FILM INDUSTRY

There is a series of recent releases in Bollywood as usual. With more to come in time I was thinking about a reaction from great Adoor Gopalkrishnan about the mainstream Hindi films. He, in a recent interview to The Telegraph (Graphitti), had said that very recently he was trying to see a Hindi film and he could not bear it for more than 10 minutes. He said that there were money in the Mumbai industry and directors knew nothing but to spend it on sets and mindless scenes. Coming from Adoor it was a heavy attack on the merits of those so-called wonders of Hindi films, of whom various media are writing, showing and trumpeting as Avatars in Cinedome. Adoor is a man of plain speaks and when he speaks he knows what exactly he is talking about. Only yesterday I saw a promo of a Bachchan enacted big-budget special effect drama in television news. Amitabh is a warrior of a sect that do not condone war, but when they do a sway of Bachchan’s sword produces a bird of fire and it flies over the head of the assembled army. I was thinking how poor can be the scape of imagination that even can not surplus B-grade technoes of Hollywood? How many times we had seen this kind of jugglery in such movies where dragon to bird to a demon

(pterodactyl sort of) appears in the screen to install fear among its viewers?

Anyway, it also had reminded me of an era of Bengali stage when the lack in playmaking (in content and form) was supplemented by placing elephants, even camels on stage to create wonders for the directors and producers. But that had soon gone overboard and all these petty magic had dried up to restore sanity and ofcourse the ‘Art’. But there is no stopping in Hindi film industry. They are hell-bent on doing what they can, that is, spending money on bad ventures. I had also seen that most of the so-called big bullies like ‘Ajuba’ had fallen flat on its face. Why? The answer is very simple. Though it is said that people go to cinema hall to get only, yet more often than not it is a half truth. They do not stick to a film that is poor on story and that also can be seen in the earlier demise of great Bachchan when he acted in films like ‘Indrajeet’, ‘Lalbadsha’ etc. etc. He came back with KBC series and then in films those had some stories in it. So any sort of mindless entertainment can not keep viewers in hall. But one can argue that these stories are definitely not the once like Adoor’s. It is true indeed. But then again there are some points to be taken note of here.
In all literatures there are writers like Sheldon who are more popular than James Joyce. But definitely no one in right mind can claim that Sheldon is much greater than Joyce. There will be some all the time that will enjoy Sheldon than Joyce and vise-versa also. But at the base these are all creditable narrations told in different manners. When it comes to non-narratives it becomes a bit more difficult and Anuraag Kashyap is facing that with his ‘No Smoking’. I have heard that his film is getting good reception in Rome festival, but here in India he was anguished by the critics. He has to realize that Mani Kaul had also faced serious lack of interest in general viewers, even Adoor himself is not that much watched here. So if you are taking a few steps more to experiments you are open to critic for wounds, but obviously not always for wrong reasons. For now I must stop here in discussing non-narratives, because I will have to get back to entertainment itself.

If there is a narration well woven in movies it certainly will attract viewers and it surely not only depends upon stars in actuality. Time and again it had been proven by films like ‘Satya’ and directors like Ramgopal Verma. Just remember Mani Ratnam’s ‘Roja’ in which he had cast an actor like Madhu who is not that a celebrity in Hindi atleast and Arvind whom Bollywood barely knows at that period. But he dealt his piece of narration with good technique and it was an instant success. In that film he had spend certain money, but cleverly and knowingly and he had his fruit. I am not saying that I expect someone like David Dhawan to make a film like ‘Arth’ even, but then he atleast can follow earlier comedies like ‘Golmaal’ that had certain story to tell and he will not need to stoop to low standards. Entertainment also needs a process of understanding and it has its logic too. I rarely have seen any film woven with logic to fail and I had seen thousands to topple with spending spree and nonsense.
When Adoor had commented he knew that thousand of producers and distributors are behind these sort of nonsense who actually controls film industries everywhere and they do not want to promote good cinemas as that will make them helpless in return. These are the people who want to dictate terms in the industry and for that reason they operate behind curtains or ‘Star System’ and again when any of the so-called Star gets too big to fit in their given shoe they try to cast him or her off. Actors who turns into star know this well but then money speaks a volume in human civilization. Then one may argue that directors are hapless lots and that is certainly not the case.

Some directors like Sanjay Lila Bansali or Ram Gopal Verma have their own company and they can even break distributor’s strangleholds too. They do often do it as I remember that after each and every Yash Chopra production a scuffle goes on with multiplexes in all around India for share of sells and all that. So they can negotiate and get free of this strangle. Then why they do not make films that of which they are capable of? In the facet of world cinema we have directors like Spielberg or Tarantinho whom we can consider good atleast. Each and every director can not be turned into a ‘Maestro’ overnight but they can be sensible at least. In India we are lacking in such sensible directors and producers too, who does understand entertainment properly. Even after Devdaas or Sarkar Raj a sensibility is lacking in Bollywood cinema. In the period of Bimal Roy it had started to produce fine narratives and from then on it took great shapes in the hands of directors like Hrishikesh Mukharjee, Bijay Anand etc. But now even with people like Bansali, Verma, and Vidhu Vinod Chopra around can we hope for a better take than Deshai or Dhawan style idiosyncrasies? Then it may come out one day that Adoor had seen a Hindi mainstream movie to its full length and house full notices can be seen on theatres too. Yes, even in this period of television and DVD-s also. That is quite possible I think.

Published in: www.passionforcinema.com

Bernardo Bertolucci-A Quixote in modern cinema

In his youth he wanted to create ‘Miuras’ or ‘Young Bulls’ as his films and in the end had made a film like ‘The last Emperor’. Bernardo Bertolucci had pompously failed himself in cinema. But was it an individual failure?
The other day I was commenting in ‘Passion for Cinema’ and had a good debate on Bertolucci’s ‘Last Tango in Paris’ or ‘Ultimo tango a Parigi’ (1972). It had started from a very harsh comment of mine to discard this as a trash film and a real pathetic show of Marlon Brandon (not as actor, but as artist who had chosen a bad film with all his conscience). As I got a very interesting reply from Shan there, I thought that space will not be enough to elaborate on my thoughts.
As Shan had said that we all have our rights to disagree I here am just doing that by disagreeing on Bertolucci’s greatness.

He was a son of a decadent bourgeois family and had a poet-writer father. He was a son of a devastated Italy that saw fascism and its tentacles that embraces all sources of life and sucks dearly.
He started as a poet and then in graduation had grown into cinema to say that he had dreamt of living in film. Along with his aforesaid thoughts another realization, that for a bourgeois turned conscious Marxist it was difficult to be a Marxist, had a great role in his cinema. Because there were the bubby traps waiting eagerly for a footstep on it and to the dismay of people like me, Bertolucci had walked on that and was exploded.
But how and why and that is the question, rather puzzle, that I will try to solve here.
I will start with certain personal experiences of mine as Shan had asked a few questions based on that.

When I was a child, the days in West Bengal were turbulent with Naxalism and anti-emergency struggles. People around me were activists, anxious, puzzled, and tortured by poignant and cruel time. Bloods were everywhere. There I had met certain peoples who were very committed to their beliefs in communism. They wore dhuti-kurtas and had a bag by their side. They travel to places where state had not visited even twice in the shape of officials or vote-mongers. They travel to such places to distribute relief in the time of flood or famine. They were there to propagate communist thoughts. Days of hard work and then they won certain friends and comrades there. In much friendlier terrains poignancies of their political work can be imagined easily. Communists, as they call themselves had won elections on the ground of those works. These workers had fought landholders and mill-owners along side farmers and workers and had achieved their faith in them.
Was that a win for communism? In my later years I had tried to understand what exactly it was and I had found a rather interesting answer for that. These men and women, whom I had known through my father as communist party workers were people of very religious nature. Their religion was Marxism and they will be hurt today, that I know for sure, with such an analysis. But I can not help it. Marx is a difficult author to be understood without proper preparation. I realized that without certain knowledge in various discipline ‘Das Capital’ is simply impregnable. Marx was not the first one who had called for equality among individuals in a class ridden society. He was the one who took this call beyond simple humanitarian wanton. If one does not understand Marx properly then how one can differentiate between his call and that of old Christianity! My known world was infested with simple believers of communism, who had no idea how will the economy be if communists have power one day.
To them party and communism was all the same. Party, just like states are run by few people and they may fall from ideologies, which these men had no idea of. When time came and communists had grabbed state power and erstwhile enemy landlords became comrade these party-workers fell short of understanding. At the beginning they had thought this as a psychological change of landlords and finally when they were outvoted in local range intra-party election they had faced a shocker. Their party is in the hand of enemy itself. They, one by one, had left the party and became silent, though with a suppressed anguish and loyalty.

Most of these men were not even half-rich as Bertolucci was. They were professional political workers and had to live on the party’s whole-timer benefits. They had no other alternative profession. But Bertolucci was in a far greater state than them as far as the economy and education were concerned. He had chosen to live in cinema with the help of his cine-critic father. Finally he had a stint with Pasolini as an assistant and he entered in cinema.
Pasolini, a thrown-out of Italian communist Party and a rebel at heart, had taught him cinema. But I hope not Marxism, because like all others Pasolini was influenced with Gramsci, the thinker. Gramsci’s thoughts on ‘Hegemony’, ‘Common-sense’ and ‘Lumpen-proletariat’ or on ‘Southern question’ do need a proper system to understand it. Bertolucci had not had that. A bourgeois by birth can be a communist, but will be challenged in a hard fashion.
There are two reasons for that. One lies typically with the formation of apparent freedom in bourgeois society and another in its knowledge system. If you have money you can buy certain freedoms in such a society. Obviously I am very much aware about equality before the eyes of law in so-called democratic or bourgeois state. To the poor this is a hoax for ever and it will be so as law can be bought through lawyers. If one judgment upholds legal system then scores other are there that can show you the farce at its height. Therefore a child like Bertolucci of ‘Surplus sustenance’ often falls into the trap of ‘Free’ society. Wealth and power have given a shield to that child to even be mesmerized by that. By pronouncing rights of ‘Freedom’ of our thoughts we only acknowledge its limitation as there is no such thing like ‘Free’ will. Bertolucci had learnt that lesson in a wrong way in his detainment by Italian state.
The other part, knowledge system, is partly academic and partly observational. If you have never lived in a secluded island ever you just can imagine how it can be and you will definitely be wrong in understanding that. This is an extreme example and I used this just to point out the difference between bourgeois and proletariats. Pasolini, once had accused Italian state in his first feature film ‘Accattone’ had shown us the ‘borgate’ (just like fascist Italy) as concentration camps where lumpen-proletariats live and Accattone himself proclaims that after his first day of work there. Therefore one can easily understand the distance between that and bourgeois world. I must not elaborate. From here our Bertolucci had started his career as a cinema-wala.
How strange was it when he proclaims his dream to live in cinema? A poetic (?) thought indeed. If you live in cinema you will miss the real world and reality. No creator can create without the point of departure of an objective world. Objects we reflect in our thoughts and dreams and acts and in creation with our own interpretations only. In cinema we do not see a chair; it is a mere reflection as it is in the case of our own eyes. Then how can one be creative without being objective in cinema?
If you start from there you can treat your subject with better understanding and so do we, the viewers. Well you can also create your own world too. And that will be interesting to visit. Take Klee’s paintings for that and it will definitely deliver you content in the shape of few thoughts. You can nurture them, you can grow old with them and day after day you will find layers in it.
A withdrawing bourgeois and a failed Marxist even do not have his own say. Shan, my friend, had declared Maria’s (Jeanne) win in the last blow-job she gave to Brandon’s (Paul) character. Paul is beggar and she is the giver now. What had won exactly? A primitive and animal instinct to have sex (though I do not know if animals do know any such forms as blow-job) or self-satisfaction that I am the master of my master, what exactly came out in this win? In psychology and Marxian politics this sort of satisfaction has been associated with typical slave mentality of women in male-dominated society. Well, then we are having a win that is not a win at all. Then, at the last sequence, a shot from a Jeanne’s gun and Brandon (Paul) dies with a chewing gum. Is that the final win?

How pitiful it was! Is this content can be compared to any work of even the ‘Evil’ De Sade or a pitiable ‘La Miserable’? No and there lies its follies in content that even can not surplus Pasolini’s controversial mixture of Sade and Mussolini’s thought in his great film Salò, or The 120 Days of Sodom (1975). Then why will it be a great one in cinema?
As far as the cinematic treatments are concerned I find his language mimicry of Godard and Pasolini at large. On that front he had scored nothing in this Last Tango and I must refrain from discussing it. It will be a waste of time. Bertolucci as a maker was never sure about his place and was always inclined to popular cinema. On the wrong understanding of Marxism he thought being ‘Popular’ is a crime in Marxist thought at his early days. It was not like that at all. Only some intellectuals, bereft of proper understanding had thought so. Ideological goal of Marxism is to be popular to spread its message of equality among workers and peasants of the whole world.
A Marxist becomes a saint only with the lack of understanding of it. My dhuti-cladded warriors of Marxism of childhood had probably thought so. They were washed out when they were out of position in party and had found the loneliness unbearable to some extent. People were used to look at them with awe and they were like gods or sages to them. By the process they had seldom enjoyed life and had become too monkish and Marxism had resembled a church system in this part of the world. When time came people who were against this rigid, dogmatic process (mostly middle class for their comfort and a few for the sake of sanity) had succumbed easily to the traps of system. When confronted then or even today they use these miserable good beings as examples of uselessness of discipline and commitment. Both they and these men had failed to make a striking balance in their act, although Marx did it rightly in his period and writings. He had not only prescription of violence for the world, he even talked of non-violent movements and transfer of bourgeois state to a worker’s state too (in 1832, Amsterdam).
And for sinners (err liberators) like Bertolucci a failure in radical movement is bound to be salvaged by an erotic radicalism. This too I know personally. Many of the revolutionary writers of 1970’s had turned into soft porno novel writers later on and they boast it as subversion in culture. In ‘Last Tango’ this disguise of rebellion was not enough to cover a pure search for own pleasure in disguise of rebellion. Truly names are not needed in brothel and if liberation is in the brothels only then too I remember some similar mediocre creators in West Bengal aka India who had similar point of view.
I will rather read Jean Genet or Sade again. Straightaway they can tell at your face that they can harm you to buy happiness for them and that is not the case with Bertolucci. He, at the best is a Quixote who poses himself as a knight. Probably the system that had made him out as a failure will produce a poet or maker to tell his story (partially told in ‘The Pornographer’) like Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra one day and I am waiting for that.

Published in:

http://www.passionforcinema.com/