Conversations Between Ego And Alter Ego

The following is an excerpt from various important moments of discussion when one took time off the less important assignments related to one’s livelihood. The opinions expressed are extremely personal in nature. If they happen to hurt anyone’s feelings one owes no apologies for that……. CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN EGO & ALTER EGO: REFLECTIONS ON THE MASTERS AE: Bergman…. E: Emotion, Passion – yes drama – human drama. Bergman reminds me of Greek Theatre – I don’t know why? Close-ups – how revealing! AE: You mean you remember him only as the playwright? E: Oh no! Not at all – he is a master of theatre – no doubt – if you go through ‘In the Presence of a Clown’ or ‘After the rehearsal’ – that’s evidence enough! But on the celluloid he is a greater master- he catches the essence of the art and creates the art of cinema through – cinema! Essentially CINEMA – you can not think of Bergman’s films in any other form. AE: And Godard… E: Ah! Godard – he made cinema for CINEMA…. AE: You mean – art for art’s sake? E: I am not talking of that – THAT’S SILLY!! He made cinema, so that he could make better cinema! His art was about making art. He created so that he could understand creation better and so on and so forth….. AE: So – essentially a film theorist? E: You jump the gun too fast! Theory is all about conception. Theorists conceive and then present. With Godard, there is no conception! AE: WHAT??? E: Yes – you heard me right! There is no hypothesis for Godard. He straightaway moves to experiment and then observes. The inference is left to you. Or may be there is nothing to infer – no need for it at all. May be it’s embedded in the experiment…….. (Pause) There are times when you get depressed with life – irritated at its meaninglessness. Such times you don’t like works of passion – you’re too frightened to touch them. The lighter works bore you. At that time you hang on to Godard. You don’t want PASSION. You don’t want GAIETY and MERRINESS. You don’t want FUN. You don’t want SORROW. You want NOTHING. That is what Godard gives you. He is a master of ‘NOTHING’. It is out of nothingness he creates everything. The nothingness engulfs everything. In short, Cinema becomes Life. Life becomes Cinema….. AE: That is interesting. Then what about Tarkovsky? Kousik Guhathakurta([email protected])

Page 1

E: (Long silence) Well, what can I say? It’s very difficult for me to talk about him. You see – for me Cinema ends with him – yes “THE END”. One can not think beyond him – he is unsurpassable No – I can not think Cinema can move any further. (In this regard I have a strange analogy – I feel the same way about Maradona – I feel that the art of soccer can not be bettered!) You see there was a time when I used to oscillate between Godard and Tarkovsky. At times I used to think it is impossible to capture life in its entirety – therefore “NOTHING” is more important than “EVERYTHING’ in art. Because you can not capture “EVERYTHING” you have to create “NOTHING”. Then “NOTHING” becomes everything. Therefore Godard rules. Then Tarkovsky showed me that the miracle can be performed. When I first watched “Mirror”, I understood that “EVERYTHING” is not elusive – it is within the grasp of art. It is possible to capture life in its entirety with Cinema! Well, after that I guess, you don’t have a choice left. Nature abhors superlatives. But in Cinema he is the greatest of them all! AE: That settles the matter then. Any thoughts on the Japanese School? E: What “Japanese School”??? There is no Japanese school. There were great directors from Japan – people who defined and shaped the art of cinema. But you can’t group them under a “SCHOOL”. The three doyens- Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, and Ozu – you really can’t put the same label on them! To me Kurosawa was a Universal Man – very much like our Ray. You see- Cinema is essentially a western art. Its evolution can be traced there only. Mainly Europe (I don’t really consider Hollywood as a place where anything significant happened with regards to the art of cinema. Some basic technological progress may be- but nothing beyond that.). That is why the art of Cinema grew parallel to all modern art in Europe. The anatomy of western classical music (the modern age in particular) reveals a lot about the structural evolution of western artmodern art. Try listening to Debussy, Bartok, Stravinsky, Schoenmar – you’ll understand. Kurosawa understood that anatomy – accepted it and blended it with his roots – the Oriental art. It is not a conscious alloying process – it is more of a natural synthesis. His personality imbibed all that is good in modern art and moulded his sense of tradition that way. The characters played by Toshiro Mifune, for example, - you can’t call them quintessential Japanese. You can’t conceive them as European or Western either! But consider Mizoguchi on the other hand. ‘Ugetsu’ shows us the sublime beauty of Oriental art. There is perhaps no other film in World Cinema, which has such silken grace about it. The whole film is like a glacier – a smooth flowing mass of something as beautiful as ice. There is no speed – yet there is continuous movement – a flow – as sense of fluidity – akin to oriental music – the anatomy is so similar. Whereas Ozu was the great master of capturing the insignificant. The life of the Japanese is not in the hyperbole but in the understatement. Ozu essentially captures that. A host of later day talents including the great Kiarostami, HouTsien Tsian and the talented Kim-Ki-Duk, owe a lot to Ozu. There are others, too. How would you classify Teshigahara or Oshima, for instance? ‘Woman in the Dunes’ is perhaps existential work at its best. The structure – so different. The collage of excessive close ups- almost grotesque at times. Yet the stylistic development of the film is completely in tune with the inner rhythm of the characters and the film. So universal at times - yet the sense of Orient dominates. Ikebana. That is how

Kousik Guhathakurta([email protected])

Page 2

you can trace his artistic sense.(Though, personally, I’ve felt that for Kafkaesque theme Kiarostami is stylistically much better suited- take for example, “The wind will carry us”) AE: Any other directors? E: There were many – the Italians especially Fellini and Antonionni. Others as well – Rosellini, Passolini & Visconti. But, I think over the years those two stand out. I’ll never forget the experience of watching La Notte, La aventura, La Strada, La dolce Vita, 8 ½ & And the ship sails on… The French (other than Goddard) – Truffaut, of course (Ah! Jul et Rime, 400 Blows!). Though Bresson stands tall. He was the best. Then, of course, the Latin experience like the fire of Rocha, Guerra , Littin. My personal favourite is, however, Solanas. But the directors who have personally touched me most – Bünuel, Parajanov, Fellini & Angelopoulos. Incredible at times…… the very best. Of the later generation there is the great Kiarostami and the sublime Hou Hsien Hsian. Kim Ki Duk also has given me some moments of joy. Recently I have also been immensely impressed by the raw talent of Bahman Ghobadi and Vimukthi Jayasundara. AE: You mean to say that American Cinema had no contribution? E: I think we are discussing personal choice here and not history of Cinema. If you talk of that, they explored the medium and added vitality- but their leading contributions ended with silent era and may be continued in the early talkies. One can not also forget that Chaplin made his major films there only. The contributions of Griffith and the early masters cannot be ruled out either. There was Keaton as well. One cannot forget the experience of watching Stroheim’s Greed or some of Welles. And of course Hitchcock – the master story-teller. But taking cue from Hollywood’s forceful explosion, it was Europe which really established cinema as high art – comparable to poetry and painting. Parallely, Japan was the only major happening place outside Europe. All other developments in the Latin American lands, India, Iran and other places were inspired by the happenings in the European mainland in some way or the other. AE: Nobody from India? Particularly from Bengal? E: Not really. One can never leave out Ray. He was a part of our growing up. He was not just a film maker. He was a larger than life icon. The lone torch bearer of an era gone past- the last Renaissance Man from Bengal. His writings, sketches , and of course, films played their part in defining and shaping our tastes. As I grew up, however, Rays’ films no longer offered the same excitement – lost their charm a bit, I am afraid. Still, I’d always love to watch Aparajito, Goopi Gayen Bagha Bayen and may be Kanchenjungha. Purely as a filmmaker, Ghatak, in his more inspiring moments, created a magic that always sparked my imagination. Of the later generation, Budhadev Dasgupta’s (for obvious reasons) films always have something in store for me. AE: What about Sen? E: Hmmm….. (Silence) Let’s put it this way- never my cup of tea! AE: But ‘Kahandahar’ was recently selected as one of the 100 best films of the past century!

Kousik Guhathakurta([email protected])

Page 3

E: You mean the TIME website? Well, so was Pyasa!!! The list didn’t have single Tarkovsky. Two Spielberg but only one Bergman (no Wild Strawberries!) and one Kurosawa (no Seven Samurai)! Americans will never understand Art. It’s unfathomable to the McDonaldians. Listed or not, Sen never really was amongst my favourites. As a fellow Bengali, I will always be proud of his international stature and followings but that’s all. Not that I don’t enjoy watching his movies at all – but never really amongst the best! Take Khandahar, for example. It demanded poetry. Sen never understood poetry. Angelopoulos, for sure, even our own Dasgupta would have done a better job. A tight script, brilliant histrionic performance, smart editing, and an astonishing last shot – that was all. But the editing style did not do justice to the thematic exposition- too dry! To use Tarkovsky’s expressions “it was at odds with the inner rhythm”. The only film by Sen which I always admire and consider being at par with the best is “Kharij”. The editing style was in perfect harmony with the theme. The ambience, the structure – everything is in perfect harmony. Perhaps it was the only film where Sen was not concerned about audience (the one which he used to target!) AE: No one from Bollywood? E: I think we are discussing Cinema as Art, not as circus. But if you consider Shyam Benegal also as Bollywood product, then it’s different. AE: That means Cinema will never entertain? E: Depends on what you mean by ‘entertain’. Art elevates. Transports you. It is not what is generally meant by ‘entertainment’. But sometimes you can do both – in cinema only Chaplin did both. I don’t object to entertainment. Only I don’t confuse the two. I love circus but I do not go to a ballet in search of circus. I love Godfather ( or even Sholay, for that matter) but of course I don’t expect any food for my intellect when I watch them as I would do in case of ‘Winter light’ or ‘Sacrifice’. If you ask me I will any day prefer a David Dhawan film over the so called ‘middle road’ nothings- the likes of ‘Antaheen’ and the lot! ….By the way, this connotation of ‘circus’ is entirely mine- Fellini on the other hand considered his studio as a circus ring! AE: Interesting that you mention Parajanov. You keep hearing about him every now and then – but never really find his name in any ‘top ten’ list! E: Damn your list business! Parajanov is one director who enchanted them all! From Goddard to Tarkovsky, from Fellini to Antonionni, all have gone gaga over his magic! If there is only one film that one needs to see to experience the infinite reach of Cinema as a visual art form it is “The Colour of Pomegranate (Suyat Nova)” Only Cinema can take you inside the mind of an artist. You can walk through his dreams, inspirations, adulations and emotions. Parajanov showed us what Cinema can do. Narratives have been broken by many. But that was always a break of linearity. Here in this film, for the first time, the language of mind expressed through vision was invented. He was amazing, unique. Only other comparable efforts were “Un Chien Andalusia” and to some extent Dziga Vertov’s “Man with the Movie Camera”. AE: Unique? I thought you said Tarkovsky was the final word?

Kousik Guhathakurta([email protected])

Page 4

E: I still maintain that. Tarkovsky was a natural culmination of the Art of Cinema that began with Eisenstein, Dovzhenko et al. and taken to new heights by the likes of Bresson, Bergman, Bünuel and Kurosawa. But for Parajanov, no other master might not have existed. You can detect the chronology of the Art of Cinema in Tarkovsky. Parajanov was a freak. Somewhat like the Brazilian Socrates or may be Van Basten (again soccer). AE: You mentioned Angelopoulos – don’t you think that for someone who walks comfortably through the cobweb of Godard and surreal maze of Bünuel, someone who considers “Un Chien Andalusia” as a lost opportunity, and the “The Mirror” & “The Colour of Pomegranate” as two most important films in the history of Cinema, Angelopoulos is a soft choice? E: Hah – as usual utter rubbish! You people will never understand art! Inaccessibility is not a precondition for sophisticated art! Comprehension is independent of creation, and, therefore, not an index of creative quality. Popularity never degrades art – then Garcia Marquez, Augustin Rodain, Da Vinci and Chaplin would never be regarded as artists! Epics have this quality of creating art that reaches millions. Angelopoulos is the epic poet of Cinema( though, he too is essentially a ‘festival director’). He is the true descendant of Homer. He has created the language of epic cinema. If Cinema is to explore history, it is to use poetry and not prose as its vehicle. When visual poetry captures moments in history, time melts. Thus Angelopoulos wades through waves of time in trying to understand the turbulence of mankind, the essence of our civilization, the meaning of human history, undertaking personal journeys across borders and through life. The theatrical compositions, collage of visions of ethereal beauty, the span of his “gaze” – all create “Epic Cinema”. AE: So – essentially, Angelopoulos is an epic poet? Is Cinema the ideal medium for epic poet? Is Cinema the ideal medium for epic? E: Of course, it is. That is what Angelopoulos showed us. Even “Birth of a Nation”, was an epic effort. But linguistically it pointed out the limitations of Cinema, rather than its possibilities. To me, at least, it seems so. Theo, on the other hand, has created a new language of Cinema to capture epic. I am not talking of playing around with time, breaking the time line barrier. The ballroom sequence in “Ulysses Gaze” remains one of the most lyrical moments in history of cinema. But that was an obvious tool – too much to say in too little time. He had to do it! But look at the way the script unfolds. Throughout the length of the film we see the director ’A’ crossing borders, one after another – an endless saga of crossing borders. At once we understand what Angelopoulos tells us – what ails our civilization (incidentally that is what the protagonist in “Nostalgia” finds as the main disease of civilization) ! Every time the protagonist is in the process of making love, the surroundings intervene. Once a passport problem (where we have that incredible shot before the firing squad), once a timeline break (where a naked man can not arouse the passion of a woman but the clothes of her dead lover can) and finally death (we understand our existence is essentially a Political reality). We see History intervening man’s most private moments We understand we are living in a time when the individual’s world has merged with the greater world imposed on him. We are slaves of the headless monster called ‘History’ (another parallel- Thomas and his letter in Kundera’s “Unbearable Lightness of Being”). The use of the same actor in all the lovers’ roles is a technique that unifies time, place and intimate emotions creating eternity. If that is not epic, I don’t know what epic is. Kousik Guhathakurta([email protected])

Page 5

AE: You spoke very briefly about Bergman – and surprisingly mentioned theatre. Don’t you think that Bergman the Cinema artist and Bergman the theatre man are two different artists? E: This jugglery of words will get us nowhere. Words often are inadequate – especially when we are trying to capture the essence of one of the very best artists (in some ways may be the best) in the history of cinema. Bergman is the only artist in the world of Cinema who has created ‘Cinema’ out of ‘theatre’. Please note that I’m referring to the art of ‘Theatre’ and not drama on celluloid, which every bad film maker is capable of ( Hollywood inc, Bollywood inc. et al). Whenever people have tried to evolve Cinema out of Theatre what they created were mutations – mutant theatre (Classic example- Sidney Lumet’s “Twelve Angry Men” and in India – Dubey’s “Shanta Court Chalu Ahe”!) But Bergman did it with his magical touch. You carefully think about the screenplays of his films – Winter Lights, Wild Strawberries, The Magician, The Seventh Seal, and Persona down to Saraband – You’ll understand that all of them could be adapted on stage brilliantly. Yet they were very much ‘Cinema’. I mean linguistically, aesthetically and philosophically these were ‘art of cinema at its best’. How did he manage it? He did it by playing with time and space – dimension manoeuvre. You see Theatre is a real time event played on a plane of artificial time. The opposite is true for the space dimension. Bergman infused time and played with space dimension in bringing out the finest Art of Cinema. AE: But again you confuse me – Bergman in many ways the best? You said Tarkovsky – the final word hen how come ‘best’ E: I still stick to both the statements. You see- the language of cinema took some time to come of age. Griffith, Eisenstein et al. created the basic tools. But the art of cinema came to fore only with ‘Un Chien Andalusia’ (Though I consider Vertov’s efforts quite brilliant as well ). In real sense the art took momentum only in the hands of the likes of Bergman, late Bünuel (from the 50s) , Kurosawa, Fellini and later on Godard. They were the original masters who established Cinema at par with others genres of art, considered superior till then. The likes of Tarkovsky and Angelopoulos took that art form and gave it new shape. But amongst the original masters, Bergman was the best. He was the daddy of them all! They all borrowed from him and took it further. Take ‘The Wild Strawberries’ for example. You find the Professor living in his own dreams. Moving around in the past in his present self. We find this technique return in ‘Ulysses Gaze’ in the ballroom sequence, albeit remodelled. The last scene of Mirror – the past and the present melt into one – you really do not know whether Terkova is the mother or wife. Sarah in ‘The Wild…” – both the roles played by Bibi Anderson. Tarkovsky uses this technique in ‘The Mirror’ (to a different effect, agreed) while Angelopoulos takes it to epic dimension in Ulysses Gaze. These are not examples of direct influence but of the beauty you can explore if you do not have to reinvent the wheel. In this direction you can cite other examples as well. The history of art is carried by the art itself as Kundera so elegantly points out in his latest book, ‘The Curtain’. But the thing that amazes me most about Bergman is his range – the span of his journey. He had an amazingly long creative life – and I do not know of a single project that can be considered a real failure. That, for someone who started in the late ‘40s and made the last film in 2003, is really something! Look at his journey – from ‘The Seventh Seal’ to ‘In the Presence of a Clown’, from ‘Scenes from a Marriage’ to ‘Saraband’ – amazing! If we did not have ‘Fanny and Alexander’ and ‘In the presence of a Clown’ we would never have Kousik Guhathakurta([email protected])

Page 6

witnessed the humorist, absurdist Bergman. Can you imagine the maker of ‘The Seventh Seal’ presenting Death as a clown, that too a lady with whom you can fulfil voyeuristic pleasures? Well, that’s Bergman for you – discovering life through his art. Life changes and so does his art. Only Bünuel (But he did have more lapses and a bit too cavalier at times) and Kurosawa (but he too, had a list of failures) came anywhere near. AE: So what about Tarkovsky? How is he the final word? E: Well, we all know what Bergman said about him – he considered Tarkovsky to be the greatest! [My discovery of Tarkovsky's first film was like a miracle. Suddenly, I found myself standing at the door of a room the keys of which had, until then, never been given to me. It was a room I had always wanted to enter and where he was moving freely and fully at ease. I felt encouraged and stimulated: someone was expressing what I had always wanted to say without knowing how. Tarkovsky is for me the greatest, the one who invented a new language, true to the nature of film, as it captures life as a reflection, life as a dream. – Bergman]

I think I can understand why. You see, Bergman always wanted to capture life – in every way possible. He did catch it – but you have to join the perspectives to get the whole picture. Tarkovsky captured life in its entirety. AE: And what exactly is this ‘life in its entirety’? E: Life as you see with your eyes open and your eyes shut. AE: You mean the real and the surreal? E: I mean Life as you see with your eyes open and your eyes shut. AE: You mentioned Robert Bresson –standing tall! Any impressions? E: Bresson – Ah! Simple is beautiful. I know I’m echoing Tarkovsky when I talk of simplicity of technique in Bresson. I don’t mind! That is exactly how I see him. I mean all his films show how simply you can do it – really it must have been frustrating at times for the other masters when they watched him go! You name any film of his – there is no effort at all – none visible! Such economy of shots – the use of amateurs, sparing dialogues – it is as if you don’t need to do anything to create a masterpiece. The lesser you express the more expressive it becomes. The lesser effort you put the more gorgeous it becomes. I’ll just cite one illustration. The terminal sequence of shots in ‘Mouchette’. We see the girl Mouchette rolling over, wrapped in a funeral dress. She seems to be playing – a lonely act of a lonely child. Then the incredible final shot – we don’t see anything – a sound of water splash and a shot of ripples in the pond. We understand that Mouchette has taken her life – as if taking her little game to climax. We understand but do not realise! Nights after, the image comes back and haunts us. The lack of expression makes it so unbearable a tragedy. It is no longer a film – it becomes life. We live through the tragedy of Mouchette or “Mouchettes” I do not know of any suicide shot in world cinema which can have such a prolonged impact on the viewer. Kousik Guhathakurta([email protected])

Page 7

And Bresson does it so simply. It is like this – if you can create a masterpiece with a pencil and a sketchpad why bother about oil and canvas? Oddly enough, he often reminds me of Kafka. Even after I was enamoured by the beauty of Marquez and Kundera whenever I read him I felt the same thing. He made it ridiculously simple. AE: So Bresson was essentially a realist –a naturalist? E: Oh God! You and your labelling – it never ends! This is actually a social psychological problem. We are always searching for labels – we invent them and then we look for subjects to put them on. We feel insecure till we do it. Disgusting! Bresson never tried to be natural. He never bothered about details (which seems to be the forte of the so called ‘naturalist’ Masters!). In fact any effort to capture details derails the artistic journey. It overloads the film and misleads the audience – they become preoccupied with discovering the ‘exactness’ of the details. (I’ve often heard people discuss things like- did you see the dust on the furniture, so real!!). Bresson did just the opposite. He removed details. He even removed drama – at least dramatic acting. He used minimal resources and thus captured life as it should be through cinema. AE: You had spoken of the swing between Godard and Tarkovsky but did not essentially compare their art…. E: I am not a professor of comparative arts (Not that I set much store in their opinion.. a classic example is the book “CINEMA” , a long interview of Godard by Yousuf Ishagpour following ‘Historie(s) du Cinema’. The moment you get your hands on writing on cinema by one of the foremost artists of cinema your eyes light up. But after glancing through a few pages of ‘CINEMA’ all my excitement vanished in no time. It is more Ishagpour’s book than Godard’s. And that is horrible. Some of these Professors of Art are the most disgusting creatures on earth. People who make a living out of formalising art can become the greatest enemies of art. In no time you find the works of beauty turn deadwood and in a flash their post-mortem report is ready written in a language that beats the police post-mortem reports hands down in respect of boredom.). So I never intend to lecture on that. Godard, to me represents turbulence in art. Tarkovsky is all about laminar flow. The thing about Godard is that though not many of his films will individually appear on my all time favourite list, he will always be amongst the top of my favourite filmmakers’ list. To me he is a body of works. No single work of his more important than the other. He shows us what cinema can do – the limits of this fantastic art. ‘Cinematography’ as Bresson likes to call this art, has been examined and stretched by Godard like no one else. You learn more about the problems of film making (artistic and otherwise) films by watching his ‘King Lear’ than reading any stupid material fished out by the likes of Ishagpour. That is why I think all students of cinema must watch Godard- not to be influenced but to take discrete lessons on art. Tarkovsky, on the other hand, by self admission, was never interested in experiment. He made discoveries, of course! Every work of art is a result of infinite discoveries. But he never had the objective of toying with the media like Godard. Cinema was religion to him (as it was a playground for someone like Fellini or a laboratory for Godard). Making a film was like going to Church for him. It was his communication with life divine. The end result was a spiritual experience for him and his viewers. Watching his films has the same effect on me as being on a mountain top or by a sea shore or in a deep forest in seclusion. While Tarkovsky put all his skills in building something as beautiful as a Ming Vase, Godard liked to throw the damn thing to floor and break it into pieces and make a

Kousik Guhathakurta([email protected])

Page 8

collage of the broken pieces. Understandably the vase has a more profound effect. The collage, though can not be ignored can hardly match the ephemeral beauty of the vase. There is one more thing about Godard which I find disturbing. He never forgot he was Godard. The Jean Luc Godard. And he never allowed his viewers to forget that. He spent so much energy in that, he could never make the supercinema one thought he would make. But I guess he did have his magnum opus in Historie du Cinemasomething only he could create. AE: So you essentially agree with Tarkovsky that creating works of art is more important than experimentation? E: Can not expect anything better from you. All I said was that I enjoy Tarkovsky more than Godard. Who am I to decide what is important for art and what is not so? Not even Tarkovsky has the right to decide that. Art is much bigger than the artist. The spirit of experiment is the soul of art. The caveman who made the first painting was nothing but experimenting. If you watch the early films of Lumière brothers like ‘Transformations by Hat’ or ‘The Whole Dam Family and The Dog’ or say ‘The Enchanted Drawing’ by Edison (whose main interest was commerce of course) you will see the spirit alive. What about the magic of Méliès – all dreams in cinema was born out of his ‘experiments’. Of course, everything changed after Porter’s ‘Great Train Robbery’ (1903). Cinema was reduced to visual story telling. A new line emerged. The land of gold hunters saw the opportunity and soon the greatest Circus Factory was born in southern California. Thankfully the tradition of Lumière brothers and Méliès still continues as a parallel line. AE: Speaking of experiment, how do you rate Stan Brakhage? E: The word rating is a gift of the McDonldian Circus people (you have to just peep into that junk site called imdb). Please keep the stupid game of those dumb creatures out of our discussion. Brakhage…hmm I’m not sure. He produced genuine works of beauty using the medium we know as cinema. But his experiments – great aural and mostly visual delights as they were – I do not know whether cinema is to be restricted to that. Frankly, I am not yet ready to accept his work as final version of cinema (Though you can trace back the spirit in ‘La France qui travaille’- the Lumière brothers’ classic). But if we are to create something of a ‘Pure Cinema’ then perhaps, his is the method. I for one am not for any pure medium of art. By the way, there is a wonderful article on experiment in cinema by Ritwik Ghatak (in fact it is part of a series of lectures given at Pune Film Institute) AE: Good that you mention Ghatak. Don’t you find him erratic? E: Perfection adds value to art. But without it also great works of art can be created. One can cite examples from all walks of art. In poetry, for example, there was Browning who was never perfect but always brilliant and Tennyson- always perfect but never….Of course there were the Shakespeares, Goethes and Tagores who were both but they were only few. In this respect I would like to quote Tarkovsky “For the genius is revealed not in the absolute perfection of a work but in absolute fidelity to himself, in commitment to his own passion. The passionate aspiration of the artist to the truth, to knowing the world and himself in the world, endows with special meaning even the somewhat obscure, or, as they are called, 'less successful' passages in his works.” The

most evident thing about Ritwik was his dichotomy. In one interview he says ‘They say that Television may soon take its (cinema’s) place. It may reach out to millions. Then I Kousik Guhathakurta([email protected])

Page 9

will kick the cinema and turn to TV.’ In the same interview he says, ‘In fact I have a script ready based on a Bengali folk tale in which I have discarded all dialogue and have used about 25 songs apart from several poems. I have gone to the other extreme in another script, which I propose to film in Bombay. This will not only be devoid of songs, but will have no dialogues either – only distorted noises and background music. It is the story of a deaf-mute girl-child of the Koli tribe of Maharashtra.’ A perfect script

to communicate to ‘millions’ indeed!! He was always torn between the spirit of experimentation of a true artist and the unfailing desire to reach out to his fellow countrymen, his political conscience. In fact often he turned a blind eye to the conflict of complexity of art and simplicity of masses. The end result was sometimes brilliant moments of cinematic beauty or naïve compromises. But the moments of brilliance far outnumber the moments of failures. Who will ever forget the train sequence of Komal Gandhar, or the brilliant use of sound towards the climax in Jukti Takko Gappo, where the physical undercurrents of the growing relationship between Bangabala and Nachiketa were expressed through amplified sounds of their breathing? In fact, one characteristics of Ritwik will always put him ahead of Ray in my book – his guts. An artist needs to have the courage to explore lands hitherto unknown to his kind (or he may have to be a saint like Tarkovsky). To me Ray always seems to have played well within his limits. Ritwik may have sometimes lost his way in his adventures but still he gives us moments of such pleasure that Ray can never give. AE: Since we are discussing Bengali Films- you also spoke of Buddhadev Dasgupta, why is the preference? E: The answer is same. Courage. He had carved out a niche for himself with Grihajuddha. He could have remained within the bounds of smartly edited urban middle class films. A band of loyal followers, a reasonable number of Multiplex audience and a group of favourable critics – what more can you ask for? Instead he decided to venture on unseen path. Ninety percent of local film fraternity with near nothing understanding of cinema have naturally abandoned him. This is all the more courageous considering the path that his friend Gautam Ghosh has chosen. Just when Ghosh raised our expectations infinitely with his kaleidoscopic Dakha, he responded to the beaconing of box office with a horrible effort like Abar Aranye (Probably the worst film I have seen in many, many years. For obvious reasons I am not discussing the films after that!). The influences of Tarkovsky, Angelopoulos and lately Buñuel notwithstanding, Buddhadev’s are the most original works from this part of the world. In fact, Uttara onwards he is going through a strange phase. In an effort to find his own language, he is letting his artistic thoughts come out raw. The lack of control is evident. He is trying to convert his dreams to cinema. But there are problems. You have to be a natural dreamer like Buñuel to really succeed in that. Buddhadev’s refined urbane nature is standing in the way of bringing out his personal dreams in public domain. There is a sense of incompleteness in his latest efforts. In spite of that, his works are the only bright spot in Bengali film now with all others immersed in meaningless banal narratives (Even Suman Mukhopadhya after his magnificent Herbert seems to have fallen back). Lack of understanding is creating further problems for Buddhadev. Presently we have a strange bunch of cine goers for whom the be all and end all of good cinema is a smartly visualised storyline. The so called multiplex audience – the knowledgeable idiots. It is they who tried to link rural Bengal with Mando Meyer Upakhyan and ascribed the dissimilarity to Buddhaev’s incapability. There was no rural Bengal in Mando Meye!! In fact Buddhadev was quite successful in creating an imaginary land. The weakest part of the film was its existential founding which was rarely talked about. This was evident in Kousik Guhathakurta([email protected])

Page 10

‘Kalpurush’ as well. The interaction of imaginary world with ‘real’ world also disrupted the flow rendering the film a bit jerky at times. Still, I believe his works will be much appreciated down the years. AE: You mentioned Chaplin as the entertainer – artist. But many consider Keaton to be a cut above him- any comments? E: Yeah I know- in fact, funnily enough, two diametrically opposite masters both cast their votes in favour of Keaton. Satyajit Ray and Luis Bunuel. Buster Keaton was a perfect master of the comedy art form. His compositions were perfect and technically he was in fact a grade above Chaplin. His lack of expressions evoked as much laughter as Chaplin’s myriad expressions. His subtlety of expression showed his mastery of the art of cinematography (for example in “The Cameraman” we see him rushing in to buy a movie camera. This is followed by a pan to the showroom and the price tag, which is understandably high. The next shot shows Buster coming out of the shop as slow as he was fast in going in to the shop!). But great filmmakers do not become great artists by exhibiting technical skills and acquiring mastery over the form alone. It is their ability to transport the viewers to another realm that makes them great. In this respect Chaplin will always be ahead in my books. Let us take “Gold Rush” and “The General” - two masterpieces by Charlie and Buster respectively. You marvel at the making of General, the compactness, the project management and Buster’s acts – all perfect examples of making a well designed comic masterpiece. You do not have such finesse in Gold Rush (in fact there are moments which you may like to call mawkishly sentimental- a definite weakness for a comedy script) – but when you finish watching the film you carry something within your thoughts for a long time to come. That, I am afraid, is not what Mr. Keaton could give us. Charlie showed us that content alone can force a work of art through the maze of complex forms that are served at the high table of art. Perhaps, he was the only one. AE: Bünuel - a director who touched you…… E: A pink panther jumped from the Sahid Minar and a naked woman rode it to disappear into the horizon. Two monks were scandalized and started urinating in the maidan. A midget nut seller approached all the passersby to have a bite of his magical nuts…… AE: Excuse me?? E: Well, with Bünuel anything can happen- he can make a mockery of your imagination, force you to hallucinate to a pathological degree, make you mad at the world around you, yet you end up laughing your guts out while showering curses on everything around you. When you discuss Bünuel also, anything may come to your mind. He gave us the logic of the illogic, made us aware of the utter nonsense that we call ‘reality’, the fragile structure of rigid norms that we hold so dear. The bizarre absurdity that we call ‘life’ and with all seriousness live it was brutally exposed by him. Bünuel raped it and we all shared his orgasm. One film which was the epitome of all this was Phantom of Liberty, a film surprisingly not featuring in his own choice list. But this was one film that was perhaps the best existential comedy I have ever seen. AE: You do not ascribe to the politics of surrealism, then how come you are such an ardent fan of Bünuel?

Kousik Guhathakurta([email protected])

Page 11

E: I was just awaiting this- you and your incredibly stupid obsession with formalism! Well, in this case, your degree of crime is a little less as the great master himself admitted his life-long adherence to surrealism and its politics. If I do have any objection to his films it is his political consistency which almost resembled ideology- something that I consider a definite weakness in art. A true artist must have fragile ideology – or none at all- he must only have queries –aesthetic and existential. Thankfully, Bünuel’s commitments were never rigidly bound to a firm ideology- it only provided a platform for asking the right questions. Most importantly, he did it in a manner thoroughly enjoyable. Though he attacked the bourgeoisie value system, it was more of an existential query than a political assault (as some naïve Marxists would have us believe). But he did have a constant political agenda- I look at it with a little indulgence, a kind of indulgence I would have toward a petulant child, or may be a disturbed adolescent, who is always fretting and fuming against the inherent atrocities of the capitalist order. Frankly speaking, I myself carry a petulant child in me – and I love it. I love Bünuel too.

Kousik Guhathakurta([email protected])

Page 12