Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2001 5:53 pm
Posts: 14989
|
The Real "Devdas"
By: Satyam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enervation, both literal and metaphorical, is the essence of Devdas´ being. For Devdas is a principle of negation, pragmatically if not quite by design. To understand the Devdas universe it is crucial to grasp the idea that Devdas is a ´disabler´ of human bonds. He cannot enter into meaningful relationships, and if he accidentally stumbles into them he is not able to sustain them. At some level or the other every character that comes into contact with Devdas is either disappointed or frustrated with this maddening inability of his to connect with anyone at all at a more than superficial level.
Devdas is a character that never quite ´gets´ anything at all about the human condition and when he dies he is in a sense as nonplussed as he ever was. Hence to call him the "Indian Hamlet" as some recent reviewers have very unfortunately done is to miss entirely the difference between the characters of Hamlet and Devdas, and this is not even to hint at the gulf of creative ´fashioning´ that lies between Shakespeare and Sarat Chandra Chatterjee (Chattopadhyay). The angst of Hamlet is traceable to the fact that he sees things too clearly or to quote a very famous critic "thinks only too well." Hamlet stands at the abyss of life and faced with nothingness (as he sees it) he is unable "to be or not to be." In general and very simplistic terms Hamlet is the ultimate reflective individual, the one who can think through any and all appearances (illusions).
Devdas on the other hand is starkly opposed to this sense of Hamlet´s for Devdas cannot think at all, about anything at all. For Hamlet there is a mystery to life because there is perhaps "more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of" in "philosophy". Conversely the banality of bourgeoisie society is a formidable enough challenge for Devdas´ intellect. I dwell on this analogy for a bit not to lend it greater credence but to gain insight into the ´nature´ of Devdas in a more unusual way. Devdas blindly walks through life and at the very end equally blindly into death. And so Devdas negates, in spite of himself.
Bimal Roy´s treatment of the subject is naturalistic and lyrical. The director is always very sensitive to the ambience of each scene and equally mindful of the sobriety of the subject. There are simply no excessive flourishes here whether by way of acting or directorial intrusions. There is not the heightened drama that would have severely tested (if not altogether destroyed) the balance of this subject and yet there are countless moments that are extremely rich and effective in their execution.
To start off the introductory scene of Devdas must be mentioned. Devdas enters Paro´s house and starts climbing up the stairs that lead to Paro´s room. Paro has so far not seen Devdas and the director skillfully makes the audience share her anticipation by not letting the viewers see Devdas as well. The moment in which Paro lights a flame and sees Devdas is also the very point at which the audience sees Devdas. During this brief sequence the audience and Paro are one and both feel the release of the moment equally. There could not conceivably have been a better introduction for Devdas in this film.
Next worth mentioning is the scene where Paro steals away from her house in the dead of the night to see Devdas. It is here that for the first time the viewer gets a sense of the essentially weak-natured and hypocritical person that Devdas is. He is clearly worried about the potential scandal connected to this meeting and yet insists that he is only concerned for Paro´s reputation. The same hypocrisy is highlighted later on in the set of scenes that Devdas shares with Chunnilal where he pretends not to know the nightly routines of his friend´s life and finally ends up at Chandramukhi´s house of ill-fame after questioning Chunnilal repeatedly about it. Similarly he proves unable to fight for his love and runs away from the village only to change his mind later and reveal the whimsicalities of his nature.
Once again the exchanges between Devdas and Chandramukhi are rather engrossing as is for different reasons the conversation between Devdas and his brother after his father´s death. Whether it is in a scene like this one where the elder brother becomes quite concerned about the family inheritance or the scene in which Paro´s very aged husband is introduced, the hypocrisy of bourgeoisie life is quite devastatingly presented. Paro is not acceptable to Devdas´ household simply because her family is slightly removed in terms of caste and yet a husband old enough to be her father, with children as old as Paro herself is, is perfectly acceptable.
I have of course randomly selected some scenes but the point is to illustrate how adept the director is at capturing the rhythms of a subject that is basically not very extravagantly plotted. Directorial vision then makes all the difference here and even more so than it would with a different sort of film. Bimal Roy starts with a difficult task and it is in no small measure the achievement of this work that ultimately when Devdas is about to die one does sympathize with him to a certain degree. The key scene of the film, the one that could in a way provide the theme for the subject is the one in which Paro and Chandramukhi cross each other in the village without actually seeing each other. It is perhaps the most touching scene of the film. It beautifully represents the ultimate dichotomy of the Devdas universe -- the two women of the protagonist´s life can never really meet. The logic of that social system dictates thus.
There are important social crosscurrents in Devdas. One gets a clear sense of a Bengali bourgeoisie that at a certain point in time was utterly colonized and at the same time indulged in a great deal of self-loathing, to a certain extent one because of the other. And the ´Bengali Babu´ Devdas is caught between the polarities of rural and urban life -- ultimately he being equally unsuited for both worlds. There is tragedy in Devdas but not because he fails in love but because he is never able to adequately define himself. His death even if moving is almost as absurd as his life -- both bereft of any higher meaning for him. This itself is not an intellectual choice on his part but as I suggested at the beginning the accidental outcome of his failure to think. There are romantic tragedies in Devdas though but these belong to Paro and Chandramukhi.
I have unfortunately never seen the 1935 P C Barua version of Devdas. Bimal Roy was the cinematographer on this set and twenty years later he made his own version as a tribute to Saigal and Barua. I am led to believe that Bimal Roy for the most part stays close to the 1935 version, especially in cinematographic terms but this is hardly surprising. The 1955 Devdas is for the most part a great triumph of filmmaking, a cinematic endeavor where the director is perpetually tuned in to the sounds and silences of his subject matter, an undertaking where each scene fluidly flows into the next without disturbing the languid pace that is so complementary to the story. Ultimately the viewer is left remarkably enriched in the mappings of the Devdas terrain.
Very recently we have had Sanjay Leela Bhansali´s version of Devdas. This treatment unfortunately rather than actually providing a fresh and innovative interpretation to the classic ends up being simply the most extravagant chapter in the titillate global economics of current Bollywood cinema. Here the sense of the story has totally been forgotten and it is rather obvious that the director is more informed by the larger than life gestures of the characters of a Muqaddar Ka Sikander or the decadent aesthetics of a Pakeezah. The naturalistic and minimalist effects of Bimal Roy´s interpretation give way to an incredibly gaudy grandeur in Bhansali´s version. The translation is startling to behold. It is also fairly obvious that Bhansali has been quite unable to grasp the critical threads of the story or the psychological motivations of the characters. He treats us to elaborate bits of posturing that ultimately leave the viewer cold. Dazzled perhaps (depending on one´s sensibility) but not moved. But for whatever reason if Bhansali´s Devdas makes us go back to Bimal Roy´s movie or even P C Barua´s widely-considered epochal film he will yet have done Hindi cinema a service
|
|
Login 
Register
FAQ
Search
